On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 05:43:48AM -0500, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 10:40, Russell King wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 10:22:24AM -0500, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > > if someone later wants to modify the code to make
> > > this variable non-static, the comment tells that person that
> > > the variable will need an initializer.
> >
> > Whether a variable is static or not doesn't change whether it ends up in
> > the bss segment or not.
>
> It does make a difference if the variable definitions are inside
> a function; the non-static variable is on the stack and is not
> initialized to zero.
I should really ignore this mail, but, sigh.
I know this. I was commenting on your code and the comment you made which,
in the context you were applying it, wasn't correct.
Hope this clears up the confusion.
> I understand that every static or top-level global variable
> is initialized to zero; but is it not useful to note when
> the code _relies upon_ this zero-initialization?
Of course, I'm not disputing that.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 23 2002 - 21:00:25 EST