Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752771AbYCPOOJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:14:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751898AbYCPON5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:13:57 -0400 Received: from ns.firmix.at ([62.141.48.66]:6161 "EHLO ns.firmix.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751870AbYCPON5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:13:57 -0400 Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl and statics From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: Benny Halevy Cc: Andreas Westin XX , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <47DD21E1.2080505@panasas.com> References: <6006DAC0B81F85439BC960F36F929CDFB5F5EE@eseldmw101.eemea.ericsson.se> <1205422989.3621.22.camel@tara.firmix.at> <47DD21E1.2080505@panasas.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Firmix Software GmbH Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:13:39 +0100 Message-Id: <1205676819.3815.48.camel@gimli.at.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-8.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Firmix-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on ns.firmix.at X-Firmix-Spam-Score: -2.332 () AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Firmix-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.332 required=5 X-Spam-Score: -2.332 () AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Firmix-Envelope-From: X-Firmix-Envelope-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1456 Lines: 33 On Son, 2008-03-16 at 15:34 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > On Mar. 13, 2008, 17:43 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > On Don, 2008-03-13 at 16:09 +0100, Andreas Westin XX wrote: > > [....] > >> I ran checkpatch.pl on a piece of code I wrote and besides all the other > >> warnings/errors it complained about a static pointer being initialised > >> to NULL/0. I fixed it but I'm curious as to why this is not permitted ? > > > > Because "uninitialized" data is automatically initialized wit 0. An > > explicit initialization with 0/NULL wastes space in the kernel image. > > gcc (at least version >= 4.1.2) seems to smarter than that. It That's good news (and new to me too). > doesn't seem to put data initialized to zero in the initialized data > segment but rather adds it to the uninitialized data. That said, > initializing statically allocated data to zero is superfluous in C > and should be avoided for style/elegance reasons as well. Well, one can discuss endlessly about style and elegance .... Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/