Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Ok. I wonder if we could reduce this kind of churn in the future by
>> adding this to CodingGuidelines, e.g. "always use { 0 } for stack
>> variables". Tangentially, do we require { NULL } when the first element
>> is a pointer? (I'm not sure because this isn't in CodingGuidelines
>> either AFAICT.)
>
> A valiable can legitimately be left uninitialized, or initialized to
> a known value that is not zero using designated initializers. So
> saying something like
>
> When zero-initializing an auto variable that is a struct or
> union in its definition, use "{ 0 }", whether the first member
> in the struct is of a number, a pointer, or a compound type.
>
> may be OK. I do not think we would want to say "always use X", as
> the world is not that simple..
Thanks. Also, I made a typo here, I meant to be more specific with
regards to memset(), like:
When zero-initializing an auto variable that is a struct or
union in its definition, use "{ 0 }", whether the first member
in the struct is of a number, a pointer, or a compound type. _Do not
use memset()._
Unless there really is a legitimate reason to use memset(&my_auto_var, 0
sizeof(my_autovar)) that I've missed?
> We do favor designated initializers over traditional initialization
> in the order of members these days, so something like
>
> When declaring a struct/union variable or an array with initial
> value to some members or elements, consider using designated
> initializers, instead of listing the values in the order of
> members in the definition of the struct.
>
> would also be good.
Thanks. If I have time I'll send that proposal to CodingGuidelines, or
someone else can send it (I don't mind either way).
