On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 04:17:36 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 04 April 2008, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:12:38 -0500 > > Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +static int current_mode = 0; > > > > > > > > Leave this as: static int current_mode;, so it'll end up in the bss > > > > > > The problem here is that this defines the default case. Is there really > > > a benefit having this in bss ? > > > > It's still defined to 0 if it's in the BSS, as that is all initialized > > to 0. > > Actually, a static assignment to 0 has not caused the symbol to end up > in .data for many gcc versions, it always goes into .bss now unless you > assign it a value other than 0 or use explicit section attributes. IIRC, gcc 3.2 is still supported and it didn't do that. Old toolchains still exist. > Whether or not you write the "= 0" is purely stylistic sugar and does > not have any impact the generated binary. Only if you're using a newer gcc version... josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
