Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 April 2009, at 16:53:44 (-0300),
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> 
>> But initializing pointers to NULL or variables to 0 is not good, if
>> it was be sure that compilers would do that automatically. It's
>> easier to hide bugs with that, you'll make it harder to valgrind to
>> help you :-/
> 
> I disagree strongly.  If it were good to leave variables
> uninitialized, there would be no such thing as a "use of uninitialized
> variable" warning.  And setting a pointer to NULL does not stop
> valgrind from helping anything.  If it did, valgrind wouldn't be able
> to find memory leaks, which it does quite well.
> 
> The fact is, assigning a variable one value and then assigning it
> another one right away is something that the compiler will optimize
> out with no trouble at all.  So it really doesn't hurt anything to do
> it.  And in most cases, there is no other way of testing for pointer
> validity apart from !NULL, so initializing your pointers (and
> resetting them after free()) is very important.
> 
> Michael
> 
Exactly my thoughts also...

dh


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to