On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Michael Jennings <e-de...@kainx.org> 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.
lol... the *warning* is the good thing about not initializing variables: you know when you miss it. As I said, if it was useful to init things to 0, then gcc would do it already, don't you think? > 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. ok, I'm getting out of this thread. Keep believing in your computer science 101 myths and be happy. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: barbi...@gmail.com Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
