From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May 19 06:30:09 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA21063
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 19 May 1997 06:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA20688;
          Mon, 19 May 1997 06:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id NAA04574; Mon, 19 May 1997 13:48:30 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <199705191148.NAA04574@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: Re: Variable initialization
To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 13:48:30 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, j@uriah.heep.sax.de, core@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199705191131.VAA13078@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at May 19, 97 09:31:22 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >> 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