Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bela Lubkin wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > >>> Sometime, please go through the IPMI code looking for all these > >>> statically-allocated things which are initialised to 0 or NULL and remove > >>> all those intialisations? They're unneeded, they increase the vmlinux > >>> image size and there are quite a number of them. Thanks. > > Randy Dunlop replied: > > > >> I was just about to send that patch. Here it is, > >> on top of the series-of-12. > > ... > >> -static int bt_debug = BT_DEBUG_OFF; > >> +static int bt_debug; > > Is it wise to significantly degrade code readability to work around > > a minor > > compiler / linker bug? > > Is that the only one that is a problem? > > I don't think it's a problem. We *know* that static data areas > are init to 0. Everything depends on that. If that didn't work > it would all break.
Right. And we know NULL == 0. > I could say that it's a nice coincidence that BT_DEBUG_OFF == 0, > but I think that it's more than coincidence. I'd have had to look over the code to find out what it was initialized to. In cases where it is not an explicit 0/NULL, I'd leave it as is. It could also break if somebody later on changes the value of BT_DEBUG_OFF (yes, very unlikely, but...). Bug your friendly GCC guy to loose static initializations to zero (shouldn't be /that/ hard to do...) instead of obfuscating kernel's code. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
