From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r109864: Fix minor problems found by static checking. Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:41:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83392zf7bu.fsf@gnu.org> <504506E8.5070506@cs.ucla.edu> <83r4qieszx.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1346730119 17737 80.91.229.3 (4 Sep 2012 03:41:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 03:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Paul Eggert , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 04 05:42:01 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T8k1W-00085L-Kg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 05:41:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56131 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8k1T-0003Bd-U5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:41:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40484) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8k1R-0003BY-1D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:41:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8k1Q-0005EB-Aj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:41:52 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:57198) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8k1P-0005Dv-0r; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:41:51 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAG6Zu09Ld/y7/2dsb2JhbABEtBGBCIIVAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kLoduBboJkEQDozOBWIMF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="197422986" Original-Received: from 75-119-252-187.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([75.119.252.187]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 03 Sep 2012 23:41:50 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id DCF3159306; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 23:41:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83r4qieszx.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:44:34 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.182 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:152979 Archived-At: > GCC false alarms aside, are there any reasons to prefer separate > declaration and initialization? There are software-engineering reasons to prefer the "initialize as part of declare" so it's trivially obvious that the variable can't be uninitialized. So in general, we'd first want to investigate other solutions if such an "init within declare" causes problems. Stefan