[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] libcacard: remove useless initia
From: |
Alon Levy |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] libcacard: remove useless initializers |
Date: |
Sun, 25 May 2014 13:14:49 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 |
On 05/23/2014 11:59 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> So, should we apply this or not? It's been waiting for quite some time,
> and during this time we've found a very good example of why it should
> be applied (I think anyway).
I'm fine with applying it, I changed my mind.
>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt
>
>
> 12.05.2014 13:20, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Michael Tokarev <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> 11.05.2014 11:58, Alon Levy wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2014 08:19 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>>>> libcacard has many functions which initializes local variables
>>>>> at declaration time, which are always assigned some values later
>>>>> (often right after declaration). Clean up these initializers.
>>>>
>>>> How is this an improvement? Doesn't the compiler ignore this anyhow?
>>>
>>> Just less code.
>>>
>>> To me, when I see something like
>>>
>>> Type *var = NULL;
>>>
>>> in a function, it somehow "translates" to a construct like
>>>
>>> Type *found = NULL;
>>>
>>> That is -- so this variable will be used either as an accumulator
>>> or a search result, so that initial value is really important.
>>>
>>> So when I see the same variable receives its initial value in
>>> the next line, I start wondering what's missed in the code which
>>> should be there. Or why I don't read the code correctly. Or
>>> something like this.
>>>
>>> So, basically, this is a cleanup patch just to avoid confusion,
>>> it most likely not needed for current compiler who can figure
>>> it out by its own. And for consistency - why not initialize
>>> other variables too?
>>
>> I hate redundant initializers for yet another reason: when I change the
>> code, and accidentally add a path bypassing the *real* initialization, I
>> don't get a "may be used uninitialized" warning, I get the stupid
>> redundant initialization and quite possibly a crash to debug some time
>> later.
>>
>>> Maybe that's just my old-scool mind works this way.
>>>
>>> At any rate you can just ignore this patch.
>>
>> Please consider it.
>>
>
>