Replace mem::uninitialized() with mem::zeroed()
#83
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
It *probably* doesn't matter. But really it can only help. It's theoretically a performance malus but it's so tiny to be irrelevant; I have yet to need a program to find out how many CPU's it has more than once. Safety: all the uses of `zeroed()` are for C structs that contain integers or `c_char` only, so it's always valid.
|
@seanmonstar given what you wrote at #90 (comment), would it be possible to merge this? |
seanmonstar
approved these changes
Nov 9, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It probably doesn't matter. But really it can only help. It's theoretically a performance malus but it's so tiny to be irrelevant; I have yet to need a program to find out how many CPU's it has more than once.
Safety: all the uses of
zeroed()are for C structs that contain integers, raw pointers orc_charonly, so it's always valid.Edit: Hah, I didn't see #82. Either one is good!