[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Uninitialized SCM variables
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Uninitialized SCM variables |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:39:27 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 07:26:19PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > [1] or rather, the C standard does not specify that an uninitalized
> > variable should be set to 0, so I do not blame gcc in the least; it
> > was the programmer at fault.
>
> The C standard guarantees binary zeros for statically allocated
> uninitialized variables.
Ok, in my case it was an uninitalized member variable, on a G5
machine, with something like gcc 4.01 ? It was dying of memory
when trying to allocated an array of 96x10497652 doubles, because
the programmer forgot to initialize the second variable to 2.
I really dislike languages that allow uninitalized variables; I
dislike dealing with such problems so much that I'm a fan of the
functional "bind a value to a variable and never change it"
approach. (seen in Mozart/Oz, and probably other languages as
well) let the compiler optimize for memory reuse and stuff!
Cheers,
- Graham
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, (continued)
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/17
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, David Kastrup, 2011/08/17
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, Graham Percival, 2011/08/17
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, Phil Holmes, 2011/08/17
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, David Kastrup, 2011/08/17
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, Dan Eble, 2011/08/18
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, David Kastrup, 2011/08/18
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/18
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, Carl Sorensen, 2011/08/18
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables, David Kastrup, 2011/08/17
- Re: Uninitialized SCM variables,
Graham Percival <=