At 05:44 AM 2/22/2013, Alain Mouette wrote:
>I have seen otherwise...
>Specialy some old compilers or embedded.
+1
Standard nor not, it has been good programming practice since before
the days of DOS.
There is no excuse to being lazy as a programmer...
Ralf
--
I have seen otherwise...
Specialy some old compilers or embedded.
Alain - "it is not because I am paranoiac that noone is chasing me"
Em 22-02-2013 10:13, Mateusz Viste escreveu:
> On 02/22/2013 01:32 PM, Alain Mouette wrote:
>> NO variable is guarenteed to be seroed, just "most compilers do". I
On 02/22/2013 01:32 PM, Alain Mouette wrote:
> NO variable is guarenteed to be seroed, just "most compilers do". If you
> want it zeroed, just initialize and it will be dealt efficiently for
> static or local variables.
I have to disagree, since the standard says otherwise.
Extract from ISO/IEC 9
Em 22-02-2013 01:56, Rugxulo escreveu:
>
> IIRC, in C, only globals and static are guaranteed to be zeroed. Auto
> vars on the stack are not, nor is heap returned from malloc.
NO variable is guarenteed to be seroed, just "most compilers do". If you
want it zeroed, just initialize and it will be
Hi,
On Feb 21, 2013 9:29 PM, "Chris Evans" wrote:
>
> Okay, solved why the cut() function was not working
> in dos, the variables were set initially to some strange
> numbers, so I reset them to zero.
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/doshexed/files/
IIRC, in C, only globals and static are gu
Okay, solved why the cut() function was not working
in dos, the variables were set initially to some strange
numbers, so I reset them to zero.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/doshexed/files/
--
Everyone hates slow websi
