Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "memset_sl".
Did you mean:
memset_s
2016 Feb 24
2
[PATCH 3/5] installers: MSVC compatibility fixes
More MSVC compatibility fixes, for packed structures.
NB: In case you are aware of the issues that may come with MS vs GCC
packing, so far, I have not seen evidence of detrimental impact from
using ms_struct packing in MSVC (vs gcc_struct, which is explicitly
specified for MinGW), with regards to the sections of code I am using in
Rufus.
-------------- next part --------------
2016 Mar 06
0
[PATCH 3/5] installers: MSVC compatibility fixes
...- a/libinstaller/syslxmod.c
> +++ b/libinstaller/syslxmod.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,8 @@ static void generate_extents(struct syslinux_extent _slimg
> *ex, int nptrs,
> unsigned int len;
>
> base = addr;
> - len = lba = 0;
> + len = 0;
> + lba = 0;
>
> memset_sl(ex, 0, nptrs * sizeof *ex);
Did Visual Studio actually complain about this one?
--
-Gene
2016 Mar 06
0
[PATCH 3/5] installers: MSVC compatibility fixes
On 3/6/2016 10:47, Pete Batard via Syslinux wrote:
> On 3/6/2016 08:13, Gene Cumm via Syslinux wrote:
>>> - len = lba = 0;
>>> >+ len = 0;
>>> >+ lba = 0;
>>> >
>>> > memset_sl(ex, 0, nptrs * sizeof *ex);
>> Did Visual Studio actually complain about this one?
>
> WDK compiler (which I also use) if I recall correctly. At any rate,
> some older compilers do not like double initializations like this one,
> and I don't think this change should be much...
2016 Mar 06
2
[PATCH 3/5] installers: MSVC compatibility fixes
On 2016.03.06 13:13, Gene Cumm wrote:
> Did Visual Studio actually complain about this one?
WDK compiler (which I also use) if I recall correctly. At any rate, some
older compilers do not like double initializations like this one, and I
don't think this change should be much of a contention point, since it
doesn't introduce any liability.
Regards,
/Pete