From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May 19 09:58:19 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA03294
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 19 May 1997 09:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA02661;
          Mon, 19 May 1997 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.5/8.6.9) id CAA24742; Tue, 20 May 1997 02:46:48 +1000
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 02:46:48 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199705191646.CAA24742@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, terry@lambert.org
Subject: Re: Variable initialization
Cc: core@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, j@uriah.heep.sax.de
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> still prevent some optimizations.  A wrongly initialized variable
>> is worse than an initialized one since it can't be checked for.
>
>Won't an incorrect initialization become ovbious when the code
>fails to function?

Depends on the code and value :-).  An initialization to a weird
value is more likely to cause obvious problems than an initialization
to 0.

Bruce