On Tuesday 25 November 2008 18:43:34 Alan Cox wrote: > > Can't understand initializing got "risk hiding future ones". As I know, > > didn't > > Because if you set it to NULL and later delete a line which does the > intended assignment you will no longer get a warning. > > > think BUG_ON(n==null) cover this. And I don't think leave it to compiler > > is more proper here. > > The BUG_ON covers it, the current gcc gets this right and works it out. > > NAK again The logic here is strange... If you used old compiler, you would get a warning, and you thought that's ensured we won't delete a intended assignment by mistake. If you used new compiler, you wouldn't get a warning, and you think this time the compiler get it right. So, what result did you expect? A warning to notice that we didn't delete a intended assignment, or a "right" result? OK. if you worry about "delete a line which does the intended assignment", the updated version with BUG_ON(i == NULL) can help. -- regards Yang, Sheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
