Dan Eble d...@faithful.be writes:
Backing up… I believe the compiler will initialize the bits in the
aforementioned variables to zero, but is zero a desirable default for
SCM variables in general, and these in particular?
It also just sank in that in another thread there was a statement that
Am Thursday, 18. August 2011, 11:45:25 schrieb David Kastrup:
Dan Eble d...@faithful.be writes:
Backing up… I believe the compiler will initialize the bits in the
aforementioned variables to zero, but is zero a desirable default for
SCM variables in general, and these in particular?
It
On 8/17/11 11:32 PM, Dan Eble d...@faithful.be wrote:
Backing upS I believe the compiler will initialize the bits in the
aforementioned variables to zero, but is zero a desirable default for SCM
variables in general, and these in particular?
Yes. In this case, if we were to initialize it,
\On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, Dan Eble d...@faithful.be wrote:
Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
SCM context_property_lookup_table;
SCM grob_property_lookup_table;
SCM
Am Wednesday, 17. August 2011, 13:53:40 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
\On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, Dan Eble d...@faithful.be wrote:
Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to
be initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks
dangerous.
SCM
Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu writes:
\On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, Dan Eble d...@faithful.be wrote:
Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
SCM context_property_lookup_table;
SCM
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 05:53:40AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
\On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, Dan Eble d...@faithful.be wrote:
Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
I guess the code in
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu
Cc: lilypond-devel Development lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Uninitialized SCM variables
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 05:53:40AM -0600
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 05:53:40AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
\On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, Dan Eble d...@faithful.be wrote:
Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
initialized? I don't have experience with
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
In C-style languages, uninitialised variable are uninitialised and
therefore have an indeterminant value.
Wrong for statically allocated variables.
Hence the danger of uninitialised pointers. Some other languages do
initialise them to 0 - visual basic
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 07:26:19PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
[1] or rather, the C standard does not specify that an uninitalized
variable should be set to 0, so I do not blame gcc in the least; it
was the programmer at fault.
The C
On 2011-08-17, at 13:03 , Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu
Cc: lilypond-devel Development lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Uninitialized SCM
Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
SCM context_property_lookup_table;
SCM grob_property_lookup_table;
SCM prob_property_lookup_table;
--
Dan
13 matches
Mail list logo
