Re: [Tracker] Uninitialized variable in tracker-files.c

[Martyn Russell <martyn imendio com>]

On 09/12/08 11:57, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 09/12/2008 alle 09.38 +0000, Martyn Russell ha scritto:
> > On 08/12/08 19:54, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> > > I was checking tracker-utils/*c due to some localization issues (more on
> > > this later). In tracker-files.c shouldn't it be:
> > >
> > >    static gint      limit = 512;
> > > -static gint        offset;
> > > +static gint        offset = 0;
> > Hi,
> >
> > As far as I am aware, the compiler should initialize variables not set
> > in static statements to NULL or 0.
>
> All compilers (gcc, sun, ibm)?

That's a good question indeed. As far as I know, this is something the 
compiler does. I am not entirely sure how much support exists here 
across compilers. What I do know though, is that we do this a LOT in the 
code for static variables. So if this isn't covered by your compiler, 
expect strange results from Tracker in general.

Note: GLib and GTK+ also do this. That's not to say we should or 
shouldn't but then they (and we) are heavily biased to gcc.

> > The only reason we do it for limit is
> > because we want something other than 0 of course.
>
> Better code readability?

That's a style preference. Seeing a list of initialised variables vs. 
seeing 1 or 2 so I know which ones have a default value is easier for me 
to read. But really, it makes no difference.

I think one way or the other should be decided project wise and not just 
done in the utils. Right now we do it the way it is everywhere else.

> While it's not needed, I can't see any issue adding them. I'm reviewing
> that GOption stuff, so I could add NULL, 0 and FALSE at the same time..

Please don't. Unless there is a good enough reason to change them other 
than style. It is better to remain consistent with the rest of the 
Tracker project.

--
Regards,
Martyn