lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot (v2)
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:48:59 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On 11/18/2010 09:41 AM, Andres Salomon wrote:
> >>
> >> No, sorry, this sounds like a personal preference that is well out
> >> of line with the vast majority of C programmers I've ever come
> >> across, not just in the Linux kernel world but outside of it.
> >
> >
> > This is actually one of the reasons I specifically like initialized
> > static variables (inside of functions). Take the following code:
> >
> > int foo(void)
> > {
> > static char *frob = NULL;
> > int p;
> >
> > if (frob) {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> >
> > Upon seeing that and thinking "whoa, how could frob be
> > initialized and then checked?", I realize that it's either a bug or
> > I look back at the initialization and realize that frob is static.
> > It's less obvious (to me) with non-explicit initialization.
>
> I have to agree with this one. In general I dislike relying on an
> implicit (even well-defined) initialized value; unfortunately we
> ripped out explicit initializations across the Linux kernel, not due
> to readability but due to the fact that long-since-obsolete versions
> of gcc would put explicitly-initialized variables in data rather than
> bss even if the initial value is zero.
>
> -hpa
>
>

Note that I sent another update for this patch the other day
(Tuesday). It uses implicit initialization. Some Acks would be
awesome if folks are happy w/ the way I've done things.. ;)




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-19 21:27    [W:0.039 / U:2.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site