On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:21:44 -0700 "Kevin Diggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Can I ignore these checkpatch errors: > > ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL > #829: FILE: powerpc/kernel/cpu/pll_if.c:61: > +static unsigned int override_bus_clock = 0; > > ERROR: do not initialise externals to 0 or NULL > #1281: FILE: powerpc/kernel/cpu/pll_if.c:513: > +int rval = 0; > > Someone (Arnd?) told me this was due to an older compiler putting > these in a strange section? Older gcc, and in fact many (most?) compilers, put *all* initialized variables in a data section rather than the bss. This means they took up room in the executable. By not explicitly setting them to zero, they where put in the bss and initialized to zero anyway. Newer gccs will put them in the bss if they are zero. You could argue that this is technically wrong. I tend to remove the 0s or nulls just to cut down on the checkpatch errors. You need to decide if it is worth it. I wouldn't submit a patch with *just* these changes. Cheers, Sean _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev