Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> +
>>> +static struct ref_store *main_ref_store = NULL;
>>> +
>>> +static struct ref_store *submodule_ref_stores = NULL;
>>
>> Let's let BSS take care of these initialization.
>
> I like the `= NULL` because it expresses "yes, I care about the initial
> values of these variables", which to me is more valuable than saving a
> few bytes in the size of the executable. But in fact, GCC does the
> obvious optimization: it detects that these variables are being
> initialized to zero, and puts them in BSS anyway. I'd be surprised if
> other compilers don't do the same. So I'd prefer to leave this as-is, if
> it's OK with you.
Sorry; I shouldn't have phrased it with BSS, because the main point
of the convention is not about "saving bytes by placing it in BSS".
Lack of "= ..." is a clear-enough clue that the code wants these
pointers initialized to NULL. And in this snippet:
static struct foo the_foo;
static struct foo *default_foo = &the_foo;
static struct foo *other_foo;
we want the presence of "=" as a clue that something special is
going on only for default_foo (it is not initialied to the nul value
for the type like usual static variables). If you wrote it this way,
static struct foo *default_foo = &the_foo;
static struct foo *other_foo = NULL;
the reader has to say "something funny going on about other_foo?"
when scanning up to "other_foo =" and then "... ah, no that is just
wasted typing and reading, it is left to NULL after all".
So, no, it is not OK with me.
Otherwise I would have said "I wonder if ..." ;-)
--
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