Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:23:55 +0200 | From | Benny Halevy <> | Subject | Re: checkpatch.pl and statics |
| |
On Mar. 16, 2008, 16:13 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at> wrote: > 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 ....
Heh, that's what checkpatch is all about, isn't it? :) Real errors and warnings should be caught and reported by the compiler...
Benny
> > Bernd
| |