Re: [PATCH] Initialise hash variable to prevent compiler warnings

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Felipe Franciosi <felipe@paradoxo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> If I really had to choose between the two, adding a useless initialization
>> would be the less harmful choice. Adding a meaningless "default:" robs
>> ...
> Being a bit defensive in that
> sense and initialising local variables is what I would do. On top of
> that (and putting the compiler flaw aside for a moment), having it
> sensibly initialised is another way of protecting the code against
> errors introduced in the future.

That is a false sense of safety. You will not know if the new method
introduced in the future would behave sensibly if the variable is left
in a state the blanket initialization created, so setting it to 0 upfront
is not really being defensive; you would rob compilers a chance
to notice something is amiss in the future code with the initialization,
just like a "default:" would. We need to accept that both are not about
being defensive but are ways to work around stupid compilers from
reporting false positives.

I am not saying that we should not do a work around. I am only
saying that it is wrong to try selling such a work around as a defensive
good practice, which is not.

> What do you think?

Again, if I really had to choose between the two, adding a useless
initialization would be the less harmful choice, as the other one has
an extra downside.