> What information is lost? Unless you're working on a really strange
> machine which does not zero bss, the following means the same from the
> codes point of view:
>
> static int foo = 0;
> static int foo;
I think the argument is that "static int foo;" implies you don't
actually care how "foo" is initialized, but adding the "= 0" is
revealing that the code actually relies on the default value. The
code is obviously equivalent. It is a readability issue, not an issue
of what the code does.
I would contend that it is a compiler bug in gcc if it treats the two
statements differently, since they are trivially equivalent. I guess
that it has been decided that linux kernel coding style dictates no
zero initializers, so that's that. Personally, I prefer symmetry: if
I have a list of static variables initialized to various things, I
don't have to use a different form for ones that are zero initialized.
Did the savings really work out to be measured in kb's of space? I
would have expected compression to eliminate most of the savings.
-- Dave
-
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/
