Re: [PATCH 1/7] Rework strbuf API and semantics.

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

let me thank you for this very nicely done patch series.  Except for 5/7, 
they look pretty much obvious changes to me.  I'll review that in detail 
later.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

quoted

+#define STRBUF_INIT  { 0, 0, 0, NULL }

Would not "struct strbuf sb = { 0 };" have the same effect?  (I am not so 
standards-keen as other people, who I have no doubt will gladly answer 
this one.)

AFAIR, non-specified static memory areas are initialized to zero bits,
and NULL resp (void *)0 is not guaranteed to be represented by zero
bits.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:43:36PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:

quoted

Would not "struct strbuf sb = { 0 };" have the same effect?  (I am not so 
standards-keen as other people, who I have no doubt will gladly answer 
this one.)

AFAIR, non-specified static memory areas are initialized to zero bits,
and NULL resp (void *)0 is not guaranteed to be represented by zero
bits.

You are right that the NULL pointer is not necessarily represented as
zero bits, but static pointers are explicitly initialized to the NULL
pointer (not all-bits-zero).

-Peff