On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Mike Nordell wrote:
> Yet again I'm sorry to see that yet another serious (as in SEGV) bug is due
> to the fact that people can't keep their fingers from baseclass data, and
> class designers still insist on putting class data in a protected or public
> section.
>
> This bug possibly surfaced since I'm using a compiler that initializes
> uninitialized memory to an illegal address value that is != 0. Need I
Does it initilize only static oir global variables of type pointer to T to
value !=0? (That's how I parsed your sentence).
It seems this is against the C++ spec and against logic (every
binary file format puts uninitialized data in the special segment that
physically isn't present in the binary in order to save reduce its size, but
just created by loader and then filled with zeros)?
Best regards,
-Vlad
