Send inn-workers mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of inn-workers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Today's patches (Russ Allbery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 17:48:05 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Today's patches
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain
"Matt Seitz (matseitz)" <[email protected]> writes:
> ISO Standard C says that if an initializer initializes some but not all
> elements, the additional elements are automatically initialized as if
> "0" was explicitly given. This makes it nice to use "={0}" as a default
> initializer, without having to update the initializer every time the
> elements in a struct are changed.
INN doesn't take advantage of this as a matter of coding style, because
it's otherwise very easy to miss initialization sites if you add a new
element to a struct that *shouldn't* be initialized with 0. Also because
GCC warns about this by default, and I tried to stick with GCC warnings
rather than turn them off.
I personally prefer to have to check every initialization site if I change
a struct, rather than just assuming that 0 is the right initializer.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
inn-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers
End of inn-workers Digest, Vol 72, Issue 7
******************************************
