From: | <korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | "imad" <immaad(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Coding style question |
Date: | 2006-11-02 19:23:18 |
Message-ID: | 1162495398.7998.298.camel@sakai.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Shouldn't we turn on warnings by the compiler on uninitialized
> > variables? This can also be helpful.
>
> Those warnings should already be enabled, at least with GCC.
Yes, the compiler can detect unitialized variables,
But, that introduces a new problem. There are a lot of tools out there
(like GCC) that can find unitialized variables (or more specifically,
variables which are used before initialization). I've seen too many
less-scarred developers add an " = NULL" to quiet down the tool. But
that's (arguably) worse than leaving the variable uninitialized - if you
simply initialize a variable to a known (but not correct) value, you've
disabled the tool; it can't help you find improperly initialized
variables anymore. The variable has a value, but you still don't know
at which point in time it has a correct value.
That's another reason I prefer initializers (and nested variable
declarations) - I can put off creating the variable until I can assign a
meaningful value to it. (I don't go so far as to introduce artificial
scopes just for the sake of nesting variable declarations).
Too many scars...
-- Korry
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-02 19:40:14 | Re: Coding style question |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-02 19:23:05 | Re: Coding style question |