Michael Jennings wrote: > On Tuesday, 14 April 2009, at 16:53:44 (-0300), > Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > >> But initializing pointers to NULL or variables to 0 is not good, if >> it was be sure that compilers would do that automatically. It's >> easier to hide bugs with that, you'll make it harder to valgrind to >> help you :-/ > > I disagree strongly. If it were good to leave variables > uninitialized, there would be no such thing as a "use of uninitialized > variable" warning. And setting a pointer to NULL does not stop > valgrind from helping anything. If it did, valgrind wouldn't be able > to find memory leaks, which it does quite well. > > The fact is, assigning a variable one value and then assigning it > another one right away is something that the compiler will optimize > out with no trouble at all. So it really doesn't hurt anything to do > it. And in most cases, there is no other way of testing for pointer > validity apart from !NULL, so initializing your pointers (and > resetting them after free()) is very important. > > Michael > Exactly my thoughts also...
dh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
