On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 04:25:05 +0000 (GMT), Alan Cox
<alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> AB> of changes that yield a negligable advantage and reduce stability
>> AB> a tiny little bit. That is pushing Linux in the direction of this
>> AB> abyss. You notice that the view gets better, and I get nervous.
>>
>> Can somebody stop this train load of bunk?
>>
>> Uninitialized global variables always have a initial value of
>> zero. Static or otherwise. Period.
>
>That isnt what Andries is arguing about. Read harder. Its semantic differences
>rather than code differences.
>
> static int a=0;
>
>says 'I thought about this. I want it to start at zero. I've written it this
>way to remind of the fact'
>
>Sure it generates the same code
It also says "I do not know much about the details of the kernel C
environment. In particular I do not know that all static variables are
initialized to 0 in the kernel startup. I have not read setup.S."
john alvord
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 21:00:15 EST