Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:57:24 +0000 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Combined APM patch |
| |
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 05:43:48AM -0500, Thomas Hood wrote: > On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 10:40, Russell King wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 10:22:24AM -0500, Thomas Hood wrote: > > > if someone later wants to modify the code to make > > > this variable non-static, the comment tells that person that > > > the variable will need an initializer. > > > > Whether a variable is static or not doesn't change whether it ends up in > > the bss segment or not. > > It does make a difference if the variable definitions are inside > a function; the non-static variable is on the stack and is not > initialized to zero.
I should really ignore this mail, but, sigh.
I know this. I was commenting on your code and the comment you made which, in the context you were applying it, wasn't correct.
Hope this clears up the confusion.
> I understand that every static or top-level global variable > is initialized to zero; but is it not useful to note when > the code _relies upon_ this zero-initialization?
Of course, I'm not disputing that.
-- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
- 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/
| |