[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110612230901.GB11580@hexapodia.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:09:01 -0700
From: Andy Isaacson <adi@...apodia.org>
To: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@...il.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel/sched.c: Fix array initialization typo
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:01:16PM -0600, Jean Sacren wrote:
> From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:35:49 +0300
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 03:31:07PM -0600, Jean Sacren wrote:
> > > The fix makes certain so that the size of the initialized arrays doesn't
> > > go beyond the boundary set by the array size of 40.
> >
> > Why would it possibly do that?
>
> With that ',' comma, doesn't it imply there might be the 41st element in
> the array?
No, that's not how C works.
> Despite the fact that that element is bogus.
It's not bogus, it's utterly cromulent. Trailing comma on array
initializer was mentioned in the original K&R and is explicitly endorsed
by ISO/IEC 9899:1999 6.7.8 paragraph 1.
> Further, if the comma is there, what's the benefit? I know you're cool,
> but is it cool in code that way as well?
> >
> > And it's not a typo.
>
> What is it then?
It is a standard C idiom for defining array contents. If you write
int x[] = {
1,
2,
3
};
then when I add a fourth element to your array, I have to modify two
lines, and the diff will say
- 3
+ 3,
+ 4
};
whereas if you wrote "3," as the last line of the initializer, the diff
would be one line long.
Furthermore, spot the error in this diff:
@@ -3,4 +3,5 @@ char *x[] = {
"quick",
"brown",
"fox"
+ "jumped"
};
HTH, HAND,
-andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists