Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:09:24 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fastboot: Introduce an asynchronous function call mechanism |
| |
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:52:52 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:59:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:52:46 -0400 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:41:17 -0700 > > > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > +static int async_active = 0; > > > > > > > > ? > > > ok will add comment > > > > I was actually "?"ing at the "= 0". I thought that would be obvious > > but it's whizzed past two people so far :( > > Is there evidence that some gccs will not add such variable to .bss?
It does get placed in bss.
> Because "= 0;" is more readable.
Only to someone who doesn't know anything about C.
For the rest of us it is inconsistent, is a visual distraction and wastes space which would be better taken up by a comment explaining the variable's function (lol).
| |