--On 20 May 2007 9:25:42 PM -0700 Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 01:25:06PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
However, we can init it on definition to shut the warning up.
Please don't. It's not a bug, doing an unneeded init just to silence
gcc (gcc could be smarter in some cases) has the potential to hide
real bugs later on.
:)
Yeah, I was discussing with this with someone earlier today.
He suggested that it was better to init it (to say NULLRTBLOCK)
because it was more likely to find a problem (if we change/add code
later on incorrectly)
than if we leave it to be unitialised with a random value.
--Tim
|