On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:44:02AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > I am for dropping "= x" and leaving it uninitialized at the > > declaration site, or explicitly initializing it to some > > reasonable starting value (e.g. NULL if it is a pointer) and > > adding a comment to say that the initialization is to squelch > > compiler warnings. > > I'd be in favor of that, too. In many cases, I think the fact that gcc > cannot trace the control flow is a good indication that it is hard for a > human to trace it, too. And in those cases we would be better off > restructuring the code slightly to make it more obvious to both types of > readers. > > Two patches to follow. > > [5/4]: fast-import: clarify "inline" logic in file_change_m > [6/4]: run-command: always set failed_errno in start_command And here are two more; with these, our code base should be free of "x = x" initializations (at least according to clang). [7/4]: submodule: clarify logic in show_submodule_summary [8/4]: match-trees: drop "x = x" initializations Not pressing, obviously, but since I had just analyzed the code yesterday, I wanted to do it while they were still fresh in my mind. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html