Re: memset as memzero

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:05:05AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > 
> > bzero! That is it, its nothing new, just a sane name to something [..]
> 
> No, please no!
> 
> The BSD memory functions are nasty. If you do bzero, you logically should 
> do the others too, and they are way inferior to the standard ones. Let's 
> not go there.
> 
> Besides, if we want to avoid mistakes, I would suggest going to a much 
> higher level. Ie more along the lines of also fixing the size and 
> alignment, and using something like
> 
> 	#define memclear(p) memset(p, 0, sizeof(*(p)))

I don't like it when macros magically do sizeof(*p), because people often
think that the macro is smarter than it really is, and you commonly end
up with code looking like this :

     char *p;
     ...
     p = kmalloc(n);
     ...
     memclear(p);

This can happen for instance when replacing a stack-allocated buffer
with a malloc because it became too big for the stack. Such a mistake
is *very hard* to detect by human eye, while having "sizeof(*p)" in
the same function as "char *p" will trigger some automatisms in most
readers' brains.

> because if you actually do something like
> 
> 	git grep 'memset.*,[ 	]*0[ 	]*,'
> 
> (those [..] things contatain a space and a tab), you'll see that a *lot* 
> of them share that pattern. 

At least current code is still greppable for such usages. Doing too
much magics with macros often harms debugging. I could agree with
having a macro to force the pattern to '0', but not to force the size.

> Not that I think it's really worth it.

I don't think either.

Willy