static values are automatically initialized to NULL
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
---
net/unix/garbage.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/unix/garbage.c b/net/unix/garbage.c
index 9bc73f8..99f7012 100644
--- a/net/unix/garbage.c
+++ b/net/unix/garbage.c
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void inc_inflight_move_tail(struct unix_sock *u)
list_move_tail(&u->link, &gc_candidates);
}
-static bool gc_in_progress = false;
+static bool gc_in_progress;
#define UNIX_INFLIGHT_TRIGGER_GC 16000
void wait_for_unix_gc(void)
--
1.9.3
From: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:16:36 +0200
> static values are automatically initialized to NULL
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
Isn't there some implementation room given to compilers
as to the representation of true and false?
On Di, 2014-10-07 at 16:18 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:16:36 +0200
>
> > static values are automatically initialized to NULL
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
>
> Isn't there some implementation room given to compilers
> as to the representation of true and false?
No, the standard requests implementations to implement false as 0 and
true as 1.
In case of assignments e.g. INT_MAX to _Bool (=bool) it will implicitly
converted to 1, so one can omit the often used !! with booleans.
Bye,
Hannes
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:18:32PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:16:36 +0200
>
> > static values are automatically initialized to NULL
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
>
> Isn't there some implementation room given to compilers
> as to the representation of true and false?
Not for true/false.
C99 standard, section 7.16:
...
The remaining three macros are suitable for use in #if preprocessing
directives. They are
true
which expands to the integer constant 1,
false
which expands to the integer constant 0, and
...
No idea where the NULL comes into the picture, though.
Guenter
> On 07 October 2014 at 22:33 Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:18:32PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
> > Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:16:36 +0200
> >
> > > static values are automatically initialized to NULL
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
> >
> > Isn't there some implementation room given to compilers
> > as to the representation of true and false?
>
> Not for true/false.
>
> C99 standard, section 7.16:
>
> ...
> The remaining three macros are suitable for use in #if preprocessing
> directives. They are
>
> true
>
> which expands to the integer constant 1,
>
> false
>
> which expands to the integer constant 0, and
> ...
>
> No idea where the NULL comes into the picture, though.
>
> Guenter
Maybe comment should have been "static values are automatically initialized to
0" then ?
Regards,
Fabian
From: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:49:31 +0200 (CEST)
> Maybe comment should have been "static values are automatically initialized to
> 0" then ?
Yes, that sounds a lot better, please respin.
On Di, 2014-10-07 at 22:49 +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
>
> > On 07 October 2014 at 22:33 Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:18:32PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
> > > Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:16:36 +0200
> > >
> > > > static values are automatically initialized to NULL
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Isn't there some implementation room given to compilers
> > > as to the representation of true and false?
> >
> > Not for true/false.
> >
> > C99 standard, section 7.16:
> >
> > ...
> > The remaining three macros are suitable for use in #if preprocessing
> > directives. They are
> >
> > true
> >
> > which expands to the integer constant 1,
> >
> > false
> >
> > which expands to the integer constant 0, and
> > ...
> >
> > No idea where the NULL comes into the picture, though.
> >
> > Guenter
>
> Maybe comment should have been "static values are automatically initialized to
> 0" then ?
I think David's concern was whether if 0 == false in all situations. It
is pretty clear that static memory is initialized to 0.
Thanks,
Hannes
> On 07 October 2014 at 22:54 Hannes Frederic Sowa <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Di, 2014-10-07 at 22:49 +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> >
> > > On 07 October 2014 at 22:33 Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:18:32PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > > > From: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
> > > > Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:16:36 +0200
> > > >
> > > > > static values are automatically initialized to NULL
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Isn't there some implementation room given to compilers
> > > > as to the representation of true and false?
> > >
> > > Not for true/false.
> > >
> > > C99 standard, section 7.16:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > The remaining three macros are suitable for use in #if preprocessing
> > > directives. They are
> > >
> > > true
> > >
> > > which expands to the integer constant 1,
> > >
> > > false
> > >
> > > which expands to the integer constant 0, and
> > > ...
> > >
> > > No idea where the NULL comes into the picture, though.
> > >
> > > Guenter
> >
> > Maybe comment should have been "static values are automatically initialized
> > to
> > 0" then ?
>
> I think David's concern was whether if 0 == false in all situations. It
> is pretty clear that static memory is initialized to 0.
>
> Thanks,
> Hannes
Of course :) It was an answer to Guenter's explanation.
Regards,
Fabian
>
>
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> I think David's concern was whether if 0 == false in all situations. It
> is pretty clear that static memory is initialized to 0.
I'm not 100% sure about that.
static pointers may be required to be initialised to NULL.
If NULL isn't the 'all 0 bit pattern' then the memory would need
to be initialised to a different pattern.
Not that anyone is likely to implement such a system because far too
much code will break.
The only system I knew where 'native' NULL pointers were 'all 1s'
used 0 in its C compiler.
David
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay? ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?
On Mi, 2014-10-08 at 09:10 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> > I think David's concern was whether if 0 == false in all situations. It
> > is pretty clear that static memory is initialized to 0.
>
> I'm not 100% sure about that.
> static pointers may be required to be initialised to NULL.
This isn't something the C standard specified but in case of Linux, I
think the ELF standard might be the right one to look at. Looking at the
kernel, I think this is an unwritten law. ;)
The standard allows NULL and static memory initialization to be
implementation defined, so NULL very well might not be 'all 0', that's
correct. Even static memory must only be initialized, when this happens
and how it is initialized is completely up to the implementation.
> If NULL isn't the 'all 0 bit pattern' then the memory would need
> to be initialised to a different pattern.
I haven't looked closely but I don't think that pointers need to be
initialized to NULL, but please don't quote me on this.
> Not that anyone is likely to implement such a system because far too
> much code will break.
>
> The only system I knew where 'native' NULL pointers were 'all 1s'
> used 0 in its C compiler.
:)
Bye,
Hannes
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 09:10:23AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> > I think David's concern was whether if 0 == false in all situations. It
> > is pretty clear that static memory is initialized to 0.
>
> I'm not 100% sure about that.
> static pointers may be required to be initialised to NULL.
ISO C 99 says:
If an object that has static storage duration is not initialized
explicitly, then:
- if it has pointer type, it is initialized to a null pointer;
- if it has arithmetic type, it is initialized to (positive or
unsigned) zero;
- if it is an aggregate, every member is initialized (recursively)
according to these rules;
- if it is a union, the first named member is initialized
(recursively) according to these rules.
Michal Kube?ek