2011/5/24 Arnaud Charlet :
>> > I'm confused. The above looks wrong to me: it does not return an empty
>> > string,
>> > it returns a pointer to an uninitialized string, which cannot be right
>> > (and
>> > should generate a warning :-)
>>
>> No, static vars are implicitly zero initialized when not
> > I'm confused. The above looks wrong to me: it does not return an empty
> > string,
> > it returns a pointer to an uninitialized string, which cannot be right
> > (and
> > should generate a warning :-)
>
> No, static vars are implicitly zero initialized when not explicitly
> initialized.
Hmm I
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:25:20AM +0200, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> > this patch fixes an obvious bootstrap issue caused by trying to assign
> > a constant pointer to an none-constant.
> >
> > --- adaint.c(revision 174060)
> > +++ adaint.c(working copy)
> > @@ -3367,8 +3367,8 @@
> > char *
> this patch fixes an obvious bootstrap issue caused by trying to assign
> a constant pointer to an none-constant.
>
> Index: adaint.c
> ===
>
> --- adaint.c(revision 174060)
> +++ adaint.c(working copy)
> @@ -3367,8 +3367,8
Hi,
this patch fixes an obvious bootstrap issue caused by trying to assign
a constant pointer to an none-constant.
Index: adaint.c
===
--- adaint.c(revision 174060)
+++ adaint.c(working copy)
@@ -3367,8 +3367,8 @@
char *
__
