On Tuesday 23 February 2010 12:02:55 Timo wrote: > Harald Becker wrote: > > Just a question about initialization of static variables in busybox: Is > > it proved that those variables get initialized to zero even without any > > initializer? In the past I had several troubles with programs on > > different systems relying on this assumption. > > I don't know too much about busybox in particular but as nobody else > have answered... > > I would say that it is the responsibility of the compiler toolchain to > make sure that static, not-explicitly-initialized variables are cleared > before entry into the 'main'. It is a requirement of the C-language. So, > if the variables are not cleared, the toolchain is horribly broken.
(Could you tell me where in the C language speci it's required? I checked the c99-draft.html I have and couldn't find it, but that doesn't mean much. It _seems_ like something C99 would require, but I haven't tracked down where yet.) Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
