![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> Any strong reason why not? x has some value that does not > make sense and can create only problems. By the same logic, you should memset the buffer to zero before freeing it too. > And as I explained, it can result in longer code too. So, why > keep this value around. Why not re-initialize it to NULL. Because initialization increases code size. It's a silly patch. > If x should not be re-initialized to NULL, then by the same > logic, we should not even initialize local variables. And all > of us know that local variables should be initialized. > > I would like to know a good reason as to why x should not be > set to NULL. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-01-08 08:51 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||