Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

From: Tim Waugh (twaugh@redhat.com)
Date: Sat Nov 25 2000 - 18:55:11 EST

Next message: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" from drivers/ide (test11)"
Previous message: Petr Vandrovec: "Re: [PATCH] G450 support for matroxfb"
In reply to: James A Sutherland: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Next in thread: James A Sutherland: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Reply: James A Sutherland: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Reply: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Reply: Michael Meissner: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:53:00PM +0000, James A Sutherland wrote:

> Which is silly. The variable is explicitly defined to be zero
> anyway, whether you put this in your code or not.

Why doesn't the compiler just leave out explicit zeros from the
'initial data' segment then? Seems like it ought to be tought to..

Tim.
*/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" from drivers/ide (test11)"
Previous message: Petr Vandrovec: "Re: [PATCH] G450 support for matroxfb"
In reply to: James A Sutherland: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Next in thread: James A Sutherland: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Reply: James A Sutherland: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Reply: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Reply: Michael Meissner: "Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0""
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 21:00:14 EST