Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:24:12 -0800 | From | Andres Salomon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot (v2) |
| |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:48:59 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 09:41 AM, Andres Salomon wrote: > >> > >> No, sorry, this sounds like a personal preference that is well out > >> of line with the vast majority of C programmers I've ever come > >> across, not just in the Linux kernel world but outside of it. > > > > > > This is actually one of the reasons I specifically like initialized > > static variables (inside of functions). Take the following code: > > > > int foo(void) > > { > > static char *frob = NULL; > > int p; > > > > if (frob) { > > ... > > } > > > > > > Upon seeing that and thinking "whoa, how could frob be > > initialized and then checked?", I realize that it's either a bug or > > I look back at the initialization and realize that frob is static. > > It's less obvious (to me) with non-explicit initialization. > > I have to agree with this one. In general I dislike relying on an > implicit (even well-defined) initialized value; unfortunately we > ripped out explicit initializations across the Linux kernel, not due > to readability but due to the fact that long-since-obsolete versions > of gcc would put explicitly-initialized variables in data rather than > bss even if the initial value is zero. > > -hpa > >
Note that I sent another update for this patch the other day (Tuesday). It uses implicit initialization. Some Acks would be awesome if folks are happy w/ the way I've done things.. ;)
| |