From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Belmonte Subject: Re: [patch] remove null-ifiers Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:31:14 -0500 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <40168442.7020806@neggie.net> References: <20040127150954.GA12740@hell.org.pl> <16406.32889.922823.45313@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <16406.32889.922823.45313-4mDQ13Tdud8Jw5R7aSpS0dP8p4LwMBBS@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Jes Sorensen Cc: Karol Kozimor , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Jes Sorensen wrote: >"Karol" == Karol Kozimor writes: > Karol> We certainly *don't* want to do that, last time I checked C did > Karol> not actually guarantee to zero out uninitialized variables -- > Karol> unless it's different in the kernelspace. Are you sure pointers > Karol> are initialized as NULLs? > > Yes, > > We definately want to do this, this *is* how it works within the > kernel. That may be the case, but in the process I think you are destroying vital information about which variables the code depends on being initialized to zero. If the Linux kernel ever changed its policy, or if the code was used in something other than the Linux kernel (perhaps even being translated to some other computer language), you would need that information again. I suggest commenting out the assignment instead of deleting it: static int foo /*= 0*/; -John -- http:// if ile.org/ ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn