On Son, 2008-03-16 at 15:34 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
quoted text
> 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).

quoted text
> 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

--
unsubscribe notice
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/