On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:18:46 -0800
Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:40:44 +0200
> > Andreas Christoforou <andreaschrist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_state.c b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_state.c
> >> index b15075a..270a53a 100644
> >> --- a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_state.c
> >> +++ b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_state.c
> >> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ __xfrm6_sort(void **dst, void **src, int n, int
> >> (*cmp)(void *p), int maxclass)
> >> {
> >> int i;
> >> int class[XFRM_MAX_DEPTH];
> >> - int count[maxclass];
> >> + int count[XFRM_MAX_DEPTH];
> >>
> >> memset(count, 0, sizeof(count));
> >
> > Can you perhaps initialize 'count' instead of calling memset(), now?
>
> Do you mean:
>
> int count[XFRM_MAX_DEPTH] = { };
>
> instead of the memset()?
Yep.
> I thought the compiler would resolve these both to the same thing?
Yes, for all practical purposes. With gcc 7.3.0 for x86_64, starting
from -O1, it's exactly the same. With e.g. gcc 4.4.7, even with -O3,
they can be a bit different depending on context.
> The former looks better though! :)
Yep! :)
--
Stefano
