Re: [PATCH 1/3] test-tool genzeros: initialize "zeros" to avoid SunCC warning

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Jan 12 2022, Taylor Blau wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 03:21:46PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/t/helper/test-genzeros.c b/t/helper/test-genzeros.c
index 8ca988d6216..5dc89eda0cb 100644
--- a/t/helper/test-genzeros.c
+++ b/t/helper/test-genzeros.c

@@ -3,8 +3,7 @@

 int cmd__genzeros(int argc, const char **argv)
 {
-	/* static, so that it is NUL-initialized */
-	static const char zeros[256 * 1024];
+	const char zeros[256 * 1024] = { 0 };

This diff does two things: add an initializer, and turn the variable into
a `static`. The former is the actual fix that is required. The latter is
not. During the -rc phase, we do not want to see any of the latter. It is
unnecessarily controversial and distracting, and can easily be postponed
until January 25th, 2022.

This assumes that making the declaration non-static isn't necessary to
fix the warning from SunCC.

Just adding "= { 0 }" and retaining the "static" would FWIW make SunCC
happy here.

It would make folks, who worry about having too large an item on the
stack to begin with, happy, too.  256kB on stack of a function that
does not make a call into a deep call chain would not matter all
that much, but it is a good principle to keep in mind.

We've worked around false "uninitialized" alarms from too picky
(versions of) compilers before by adding an otherwise unnecessary
initializers before, and I think this falls into the same category.

It is a separate matter if it is appropriate to worry about SunCC
this late in the cycle.  If this were "we were clean before, and
these small number of places add breakages", I would say yes.

But if this is "let's not add more of the same existing breakage
that we already have tons", we should not even be discussing about
such a change this late in the cycle (immediately after the new
offenders were added would have been more appropriate).

I offhand do not know which side of that line this one falls,
though.

Thanks.