On 05/23/2014 11:59 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 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).
I'm fine with applying it, I changed my mind. > > 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. >> > >