On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Fabian Cenedese wrote: > > >I think this (and many of the patches you sent) it is just *your* problems > >with a broken compiler. The Standard define non-local non-initialized > >object to be pre-initialized with zero. > > Where is this standard written? I don't know of neither msvc or gcc to > initialize variables with zero, at least not in release builds. We already > had quite some errors in other projects (built with gcc) that eventually > came from not initialized variables that contained garbage. > So I don't consider resetting variables after creation a bad thing. If > these were needed in these patches I don't know.
It is called ANSI C99 (*The* C Standard), Section 6.7.8 bullet 10: http://tinyurl.com/2cmfvj Can't find a free online copy of WG21 (C++) but trust me, it says *the same* thing. Did you even *try* with GCC? It does and it always did. Also, the above does *not* apply to local (stack) variables, like I wrote in "The Standard define non-local non-initialized ...". I think, you are confused with variables *allocated* with malloc/new, or with local/stack variables. Those are different beasts, and the patch was not above those (and XMail already zero malloced data). - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
