![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Son, 2008-03-16 at 15:34 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > On Mar. 13, 2008, 17:43 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at> wrote: > > On Don, 2008-03-13 at 16:09 +0100, Andreas Westin XX wrote: > > [....] > >> I ran checkpatch.pl on a piece of code I wrote and besides all the other > >> warnings/errors it complained about a static pointer being initialised > >> to NULL/0. I fixed it but I'm curious as to why this is not permitted ? > > > > Because "uninitialized" data is automatically initialized wit 0. An > > explicit initialization with 0/NULL wastes space in the kernel image. > > gcc (at least version >= 4.1.2) seems to smarter than that. It That's good news (and new to me too). > doesn't seem to put data initialized to zero in the initialized data > segment but rather adds it to the uninitialized data. That said, > initializing statically allocated data to zero is superfluous in C > and should be avoided for style/elegance reasons as well. Well, one can discuss endlessly about style and elegance .... Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services -- 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: 2008-03-16 15:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||