Re: [PATCH] Combined APM patch

[Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 05:43:48AM -0500, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 10:40, Russell King wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 10:22:24AM -0500, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > > if someone later wants to modify the code to make
> > > this variable non-static, the comment tells that person that
> > > the variable will need an initializer.
> > 
> > Whether a variable is static or not doesn't change whether it ends up in
> > the bss segment or not.
> 
> It does make a difference if the variable definitions are inside
> a function; the non-static variable is on the stack and is not
> initialized to zero.

I should really ignore this mail, but, sigh.

I know this.  I was commenting on your code and the comment you made which,
in the context you were applying it, wasn't correct.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

> I understand that every static or top-level global variable
> is initialized to zero; but is it not useful to note when
> the code _relies upon_ this zero-initialization?  

Of course, I'm not disputing that.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html