On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Tim Waugh wrote: > > 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.. Good idea; unfortunately, it's probably too kernel-specific, so gcc may not want to include this change. Also, the kernel is gcc version-specific; even if this feature were automated in gcc now, it could take some time before the kernel could safely be built under that version. Better to optimise the source code to avoid the problem, rather than change the compiler to kludge around it. James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Andries Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Russell King
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0&qu... Andries Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Russell King
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Herbert Xu
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0&qu... Andries Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... James A Sutherland
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static fo... Tim Waugh
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "stat... James A Sutherland
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "stat... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "... Philipp Rumpf
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "... Peter Samuelson
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "stat... Michael Meissner
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Jeff Garzik
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static fo... Andries Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "stat... Martin Mares
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Herbert Xu
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Helge Hafting
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Albert D. Cahalan