On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Tim Waugh wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:53:00PM +0000, James A Sutherland wrote: > > > Which is silly. The variable is explicitly defined to be zero > > anyway, whether you put this in your code or not. > > Why doesn't the compiler just leave out explicit zeros from the > 'initial data' segment then? Seems like it ought to be tought to.. yes, taught to, _BUT_ never let this to be a default option, please. Because there are valid cases where a programmer things "this is in .data" and that means this should be in .data. Think of binary patching an object as one valid example (there may be others, I forgot). Regards, Tigran - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Andries Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Russell King
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0&qu... Andries Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Russell King
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" Herbert Xu
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0&qu... Andries Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... James A Sutherland
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static fo... Tim Waugh
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "stat... James A Sutherland
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "stat... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "... Philipp Rumpf
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "... Peter Samuelson
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "stat... Michael Meissner
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Jeff Garzik
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static fo... Andries Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "stat... Martin Mares
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Herbert Xu
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Helge Hafting
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = ... Albert D. Cahalan
- Re: [PATCH] removal of "static fo... Russell King