Attention is currently required from: laforge.

neels has posted comments on this change. ( 
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/32323 )

Change subject: sccp: allow separate cs7 for IuPS and IuCS
......................................................................


Patch Set 3:

(2 comments)

This change is ready for review.

File src/osmo-hnbgw/hnbgw_cn.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/32323/comment/b3ff89d3_4d55d0f2 
PS2, Line 570:  hsi = talloc(cnlink, struct hnbgw_sccp_inst);
> no zero-initialization
full init of all members follows right in the next line.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/32323/comment/5227b3dd_8455a020
PS2, Line 571:  *
> Based on my understanding, the compiler is permitted to only set those member 
> fields explicitly stat […]
i've been using the idiom of

  *foo = (struct foo){
      .something = 123,
  };

as a way to reliably initialize all members of foo with zero a lot, for a long 
long time now. If that is wrong then we may have a bit of a problem...

For example in osmo-bsc, in lchan_reset(), i use above idiom to clear out all 
stale lchan state. It works. But is that just incidental?

We have discussed this idiom a lot on and off, and I am actually pretty sure it 
is defined to zero-initialize all members. It does/may not initialize the 
padding, but i almost never care about that, only when going to use memcmp(). 
Also we discussed 'foo = {}' vs 'foo = {0}', but so far each time I end up 
being right on that topic. I think Pau or was it Vadim had an interesting link 
on a discussion among C language developers?

anyhow, I accept your premature-optimization argument, and I want to get this 
merged as quickly as possible to help out a customer.

(Still I am quite certain that I'm right with that way of initialization.)



--
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hnbgw/+/32323
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit 
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings

Gerrit-Project: osmo-hnbgw
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: Iea1824f1c586723d989c80a909bae16bd2866e08
Gerrit-Change-Number: 32323
Gerrit-PatchSet: 3
Gerrit-Owner: neels <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-CC: laforge <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Attention: laforge <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 00:22:19 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: laforge <[email protected]>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment

Reply via email to