From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49768) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WoVSY-0003J6-H7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 May 2014 06:15:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WoVST-0003bT-Hl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 May 2014 06:15:18 -0400 Message-ID: <5381C299.7080709@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 13:14:49 +0300 From: Alon Levy MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1399569594-31678-1-git-send-email-mjt@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <536F2DC0.9080809@redhat.com> <536F6180.1010905@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <87mwenz734.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <537FB6C7.5000900@msgid.tls.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <537FB6C7.5000900@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] libcacard: remove useless initializers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Michael Tokarev , Markus Armbruster Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 05/23/2014 11:59 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote: > So, should we apply this or not? It's been waiting for quite some time, > and during this time we've found a very good example of why it should > be applied (I think anyway). I'm fine with applying it, I changed my mind. > > Thanks, > > /mjt > > > 12.05.2014 13:20, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Michael Tokarev writes: >> >>> 11.05.2014 11:58, Alon Levy wrote: >>>> On 05/08/2014 08:19 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote: >>>>> libcacard has many functions which initializes local variables >>>>> at declaration time, which are always assigned some values later >>>>> (often right after declaration). Clean up these initializers. >>>> >>>> How is this an improvement? Doesn't the compiler ignore this anyhow? >>> >>> Just less code. >>> >>> To me, when I see something like >>> >>> Type *var = NULL; >>> >>> in a function, it somehow "translates" to a construct like >>> >>> Type *found = NULL; >>> >>> That is -- so this variable will be used either as an accumulator >>> or a search result, so that initial value is really important. >>> >>> So when I see the same variable receives its initial value in >>> the next line, I start wondering what's missed in the code which >>> should be there. Or why I don't read the code correctly. Or >>> something like this. >>> >>> So, basically, this is a cleanup patch just to avoid confusion, >>> it most likely not needed for current compiler who can figure >>> it out by its own. And for consistency - why not initialize >>> other variables too? >> >> I hate redundant initializers for yet another reason: when I change the >> code, and accidentally add a path bypassing the *real* initialization, I >> don't get a "may be used uninitialized" warning, I get the stupid >> redundant initialization and quite possibly a crash to debug some time >> later. >> >>> Maybe that's just my old-scool mind works this way. >>> >>> At any rate you can just ignore this patch. >> >> Please consider it. >> > >