[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"
    Andries Brouwer wrote:
    > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:27:15PM +0000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:

    I think it's a bad sign if people like the two of you start flaming
    each other ...

    On the issue of static int foo = 0; vs. static int foo; I'd agree
    with Andries' view. It's a common enough idiom that it is useful to
    convey the intentions of the programmer.

    On "optimizing" changes: there are plenty of very ugly things you can
    do to a C program to make source or object code smaller (e.g. use only
    one-character identifiers for smaller code; re-use variables as much
    as possible, maybe with casts for smaller stack footprint, etc.). We
    usually avoid these too, so a few extra initializations in the source
    shouldn't hurt.

    On the .data segment size: if all the energy that went into this
    thread would have gone into implementing a gcc option to move all-zero
    .data objects to .bss, the technical side of the problem would be
    solved already ;-)

    > Does the kernel contain a bug? Panic! I don't think my alpha would
    > have gotten an uptime of 1198 days under that paradigm.
    > (I don't think you were serious, but still..)

    Hmm, sometimes a panic _is_ the right answer, though. If a critical
    subsystem just politely returns an error to user space and tries to
    continue, it may take a while until somebody realizes that there's
    something wrong at all ...

    - Werner

    / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH /
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:47    [W:2.648 / U:0.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site