Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:49:33 -0800 | From | Corey Ashford <> | Subject | Re: [BUG ?] checkpatch.pl rejects as error something I think it ought to be allow |
| |
On 02/21/2011 03:40 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:28:02PM -0800, Corey Ashford wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have a piece of code where I have two constants defined as follows: >> >> static const unsigned long polling_interval_sec = 1; >> static const unsigned long polling_interval_ns = 0; >> >> Now, it's clear to me that I want these two values to have the >> keywords const and static. I could use a #define here, but const >> static seemed cleaner to me. >> >> When I run checkpatch.pl across this code, I get this error: >> >> ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL. >> >> I think the problem here is that another case is needed for "static >> const" that does allow 0. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Thanks for your consideration, > > The warning is intended to tell you that the = 0 is unnecessary. Any > static is 0 by default I believe. At some point the addition of the 0 > would move the value from the bss to the data segment bloating the code. > This may no longer be true.
OK, but that means I'd have to have a declaration like this, which looks quite odd to me:
static const poll_interval_ns; /* = 0 */
I don't think that is preferable to this:
static const poll_interval_ns = 0;
- Corey
| |