So, should we apply this or not? It's been waiting for quite some time, and during this time we've found a very good example of why it should be applied (I think anyway).
Thanks, /mjt 12.05.2014 13:20, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> writes: > >> 11.05.2014 11:58, Alon Levy wrote: >>> On 05/08/2014 08:19 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote: >>>> libcacard has many functions which initializes local variables >>>> at declaration time, which are always assigned some values later >>>> (often right after declaration). Clean up these initializers. >>> >>> How is this an improvement? Doesn't the compiler ignore this anyhow? >> >> Just less code. >> >> To me, when I see something like >> >> Type *var = NULL; >> >> in a function, it somehow "translates" to a construct like >> >> Type *found = NULL; >> >> That is -- so this variable will be used either as an accumulator >> or a search result, so that initial value is really important. >> >> So when I see the same variable receives its initial value in >> the next line, I start wondering what's missed in the code which >> should be there. Or why I don't read the code correctly. Or >> something like this. >> >> So, basically, this is a cleanup patch just to avoid confusion, >> it most likely not needed for current compiler who can figure >> it out by its own. And for consistency - why not initialize >> other variables too? > > I hate redundant initializers for yet another reason: when I change the > code, and accidentally add a path bypassing the *real* initialization, I > don't get a "may be used uninitialized" warning, I get the stupid > redundant initialization and quite possibly a crash to debug some time > later. > >> Maybe that's just my old-scool mind works this way. >> >> At any rate you can just ignore this patch. > > Please consider it. >
