Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:29:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:29:25 -0500 Received: from otter.mbay.net ([206.40.79.2]:49675 "EHLO otter.mbay.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:29:09 -0500 From: jalvo@mbay.net (John Alvord) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:01:03 GMT Message-ID: <3a219890.57346310@mail.mbay.net> In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 04:25:05 +0000 (GMT), Alan Cox wrote: >> AB> of changes that yield a negligable advantage and reduce stability >> AB> a tiny little bit. That is pushing Linux in the direction of this >> AB> abyss. You notice that the view gets better, and I get nervous. >> >> Can somebody stop this train load of bunk? >> >> Uninitialized global variables always have a initial value of >> zero. Static or otherwise. Period. > >That isnt what Andries is arguing about. Read harder. Its semantic differences >rather than code differences. > > static int a=0; > >says 'I thought about this. I want it to start at zero. I've written it this >way to remind of the fact' > >Sure it generates the same code It also says "I do not know much about the details of the kernel C environment. In particular I do not know that all static variables are initialized to 0 in the kernel startup. I have not read setup.S." john alvord - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/