On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:09:02 -0700 "Zang Roy-R61911" <r61...@freescale.com> wrote:
> > > > > + struct fsl_elbc_fcm_ctrl *elbc_fcm_ctrl = NULL; > > > > > > > > No need for = NULL. > > > Any harm? Or just personal habit or style? Can you explain about > why? > > > > Besides not wanting superfluous code on general principle, it could > > hide a bug if in the future the real initialization is missing on some > > code path. It would become a runtime NULL dereference rather than a > > compiler warning. > > Not exactly. > Per my understand, if the pointer will definitely be assigned in code > path, > it is not necessary to init it when define. for example, > > char c; > char b; > char *a; > if (condition) > a = &c; > else > a = &b; > ... > > for other case, if the path will not ensure the pointer assignment, it > will be inited > when define to avoid warning. for example, > > char c; > char *a = NULL; > if (condition) > a = &c; > ... Yes, but this patch looks like the former case, not the latter. Is GCC giving a warning without the initializer? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev