On 8/17/11 11:32 PM, "Dan Eble" wrote:
>
> Backing upS I believe the compiler will initialize the bits in the
> aforementioned variables to zero, but is zero a desirable default for SCM
> variables in general, and these in particular?
Yes. In this case, if we were to initialize it, it would b
Am Thursday, 18. August 2011, 11:45:25 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Dan Eble writes:
> > Backing up… I believe the compiler will initialize the bits in the
> > aforementioned variables to zero, but is zero a desirable default for
> > SCM variables in general, and these in particular?
> >
> > It also
Dan Eble writes:
> Backing up… I believe the compiler will initialize the bits in the
> aforementioned variables to zero, but is zero a desirable default for
> SCM variables in general, and these in particular?
>
> It also just sank in that in another thread there was a statement that
> treating
On 2011-08-17, at 13:03 , Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival"
>
> To: "Carl Sorensen"
> Cc: "lilypond-devel Development"
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Uninitialized SCM varia
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 07:26:19PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > [1] or rather, the C standard does not specify that an uninitalized
> > variable should be set to 0, so I do not blame gcc in the least; it
> > was the programmer at fault.
>
> The C standard guarantee
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> In C-style languages, uninitialised variable are uninitialised and
> therefore have an indeterminant value.
Wrong for statically allocated variables.
> Hence the danger of uninitialised pointers. Some other languages do
> initialise them to 0 - visual basic is an example
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 05:53:40AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> \On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, "Dan Eble" wrote:
>>
>> > Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
>> > initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
>
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Carl Sorensen"
Cc: "lilypond-devel Development"
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Uninitialized SCM variables
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 05:53:40AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
\
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 05:53:40AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> \On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, "Dan Eble" wrote:
>
> > Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
> > initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
>
> I guess the code in this sec
Carl Sorensen writes:
> \On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, "Dan Eble" wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
>> initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
>>
>> SCM context_property_lookup_table;
>> SCM grob_property_lookup_table
Am Wednesday, 17. August 2011, 13:53:40 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
> \On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, "Dan Eble" wrote:
> > Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to
> > be initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks
> > dangerous.
> >
> > SCM context_property_lo
\On 8/16/11 10:25 PM, "Dan Eble" wrote:
> Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
> initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
>
> SCM context_property_lookup_table;
> SCM grob_property_lookup_table;
> SCM prob_property_lookup_tab
Is there a reason that these variables in lily/profile.cc don't need to be
initialized? I don't have experience with guile, but it looks dangerous.
SCM context_property_lookup_table;
SCM grob_property_lookup_table;
SCM prob_property_lookup_table;
--
Dan
___
13 matches
Mail list logo
