On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Scott Doctor <scott at scottdoctor.com> wrote:
> My opinion is to keep it portable. The warning is there for a reason. you > are worried about performance yet are calling a function that does nothing, > which will take more memory cycles than a simple check for zero. > I didn't say don't make a change. I'm observing there are things to consider. In particular the optimization strategies that the SQLite team have pursued for several years now have been *tiny* little optimizations that would never be justifiable on their own but that really add up, particularly for small devices probably running on batteries. > Trying to memset a zero length is a bug, not the warning. Add an if > statement around it. If the variable is local, it will probably be > optimized as a register variable and a zero check of a register is a single > op-code. > Trying to memset a zero length buffer is not a bug if the length of the sequence of bytes that needs to be set is zero. C89 in particular does not disallow this use. > the problem with disabling warnings is that even if this instance is not > an error, some other part of the code may end up with the same situation > but is an error in the coding. I would prefer code that can be compiled > with all warnings turned on that gives no warnings than have a potential > problem because of a glitch in the code. > I don't think anyone called for disabling the warning. I think it should just be ignored in this case, just as I ignore warnings that are generated by Visual C++ when I compile SQLite there. -- Scott Robison
