Re: [PATCH 05/38] refs: create a base class "ref_store" for files_ref_store

Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

+
+static struct ref_store *main_ref_store = NULL;
+
+static struct ref_store *submodule_ref_stores = NULL;

Let's let BSS take care of these initialization.

I like the `= NULL` because it expresses "yes, I care about the initial
values of these variables", which to me is more valuable than saving a
few bytes in the size of the executable. But in fact, GCC does the
obvious optimization: it detects that these variables are being
initialized to zero, and puts them in BSS anyway. I'd be surprised if
other compilers don't do the same. So I'd prefer to leave this as-is, if
it's OK with you.

Sorry; I shouldn't have phrased it with BSS, because the main point
of the convention is not about "saving bytes by placing it in BSS".

Lack of "= ..." is a clear-enough clue that the code wants these
pointers initialized to NULL.  And in this snippet:

	static struct foo the_foo;

        static struct foo *default_foo = &the_foo;
        static struct foo *other_foo;

we want the presence of "=" as a clue that something special is
going on only for default_foo (it is not initialied to the nul value
for the type like usual static variables).  If you wrote it this way,

        static struct foo *default_foo = &the_foo;
        static struct foo *other_foo = NULL;

the reader has to say "something funny going on about other_foo?"
when scanning up to "other_foo =" and then "... ah, no that is just
wasted typing and reading, it is left to NULL after all".

So, no, it is not OK with me.

Otherwise I would have said "I wonder if ..." ;-)