rfuchs left a comment (kamailio/kamailio#4781)
> Designated field initialisation on declaration (introduced in C99) should
> ensure that the other fields (not initialised explicitly by name) are
> initialised by the compiler, but that might not be as a block of zeros. I
> haven't checked if all compilers comply and from what version.
To my knowledge, this behaviour (zero-initialise of any struct members that
aren't listed) is part of the standard and therefore required. Any compiler not
doing it would be broken.
> I was calling for other developers to express their opinion before deciding
> to merge. I see it more like a cosmetic change (that can be applied in many
> other parts of code), rather than a real necessity.
Theoretically, initialising the struct with a compound literal would be faster
than doing a memset and then overwriting the zeroed members, but in practice a
good compiler optimises this anyway, and the resulting instructions are very
similar or even identical: https://godbolt.org/z/od8rzMvcK
Personally I prefer direct initialisation with a compound literal as I find it
easier to read, but yeah, this is really cosmetic.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/4781#issuecomment-4855346469
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <kamailio/kamailio/pull/4781/[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio - Development Mailing List -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the
sender!
