Nils, no it doesn't matter. Rather intended. By initializing it to NULL we forced implementors to use a pointer that would have to be initialized at some point. Now it can be a class / struct that is instead initialized by a default constructor.
/R On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Nils Loodin wrote: > Does it matter that the pointer gets initialized to NULL before, but not now? > There isn't any null checks anywhere that depends on that? > > Regards, > Nils > > On 04/24/2013 09:51 AM, Rickard Bäckman wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> can I have a couple of reviews for this small change. The short story is >> that the current way the thread-local _trace_buffer is somewhat inflexible. >> By changing the type of the getter this structure gets more flexible for >> different implementations. I also think that the name is misused. Just >> naming it >> to _trace_data is more generic and less implementation-specific. >> >> The webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rbackman/8013117/ >> >> Thanks >> /R >> >
