Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 13:48:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, j@uriah.heep.sax.de, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Variable initialization Message-ID: <199705191148.NAA04574@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <199705191131.VAA13078@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at May 19, 97 09:31:22 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> Can someone tell me why this is called obfuscation ?
>
> With old compilers, it was a pessimization to initalize variables
> unnecessarily or long before they are used. With modern compilers,
> it defeats automatic checking for uninitialized variables and may
> still prevent some optimizations.
I made on purpose the example
int a, b, c;
<no other code here, just declarations>
a=1 ; b = 2 ; c = 3 ;
where none of the above presumably applies.
> still prevent some optimizations. A wrongly initialized variable
> is worse than an initialized one since it can't be checked for.
this is as obvious as useless. The compiler won't catch a wrong
init value, either in the declaration or in an explicit assignement.
But anyways I was just trying to understand if there was something
fundamentally wrong in my preference of
int a = 3;
in place of
int a ;
a = 3 ;
Cheers
Luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705191148.NAA04574>