Gary E. Miller via devel :
> So static storage items are initialized for at least C11.
To zeros. It would be *deeply* shocking and break all manner of code
if a C compiler ever failed to enforce that.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
signature.asc
Description:
Yo Ian!
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:16:11 -0500
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> On 8/29/19 4:36 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> > Hal you are corect. Page 140, section 6.7.9 Initialization.
> >
> > "If an object that has static or thread storage duration is not
> > initialized explicitly, then:
On 8/29/19 4:36 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
Hal you are corect. Page 140, section 6.7.9 Initialization.
"If an object that has static or thread storage duration is not initialized
explicitly, then:
[...]
-- if it has arithmetic tye, it is initialized to (positive or unsigned)
zero;"
Yo Hal!
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:06:25 -0700
> Hal Murray via devel wrote:
>
> > >> By "floating", you mean uninnitialized? In C that's going to
> > >> mean it's
> > false
> >
> > > Yes. My understanding of C is that anything not explicitly set has
> > > whatever random value happens to
Yo Hal!
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:06:25 -0700
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> >> By "floating", you mean uninnitialized? In C that's going to mean
> >> it's
> false
>
> > Yes. My understanding of C is that anything not explicitly set has
> > whatever random value happens to be in that memory loc
>> By "floating", you mean uninnitialized? In C that's going to mean it's
false
> Yes. My understanding of C is that anything not explicitly set has whatever
> random value happens to be in that memory location. Possibly changed if
> certain unknown compiler options are chosen.
I thought g
On 8/29/19 3:46 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
By "floating", you mean uninnitialized? In C that's going to mean it's false
Yes. My understanding of C is that anything not explicitly set has
whatever random value happens to be in that memory location. Possibly
changed if certain unknown compil
Ian Bruene via devel :
>
> The other day I determined that the flag disable_dynamic_updates (currently
> in the io_data struct) is either not properly initialized, or is blocking
> off a large chunk of dead code. After reading through the relevant code and
> looking through the history I think it
