Re: [PATCH 1/7] Rework strbuf API and semantics.

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 6, 2007, 14:50 UTC
Message-ID: <20070906145035.GA3546@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <857in3dfad.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>

On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:44:42PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> >> Would not "struct strbuf sb = { 0 };" have the same effect?  (I am not so 
> >> standards-keen as other people, who I have no doubt will gladly answer 
> >> this one.)
> >
> > Yes, it would, according to the standard.
> 
> Have a citation for that?

Of course.

See ISO 9899:1999, section 6.7.8.

Paragraph 10:

  If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized
  explicitly, its value is indeterminate. If an object that has static
  storage duration is not initialized explicitly, then:

  -- if it has pointer type, it is initialized to a null pointer;

  -- if it has arithmetic type, it is initialized to (positive or
  unsigned) zero;

  -- if it is an aggregate, every member is initialized (recursively)
  according to these rules;

  -- if it is a union, the first named member is initialized (recursively)
  according to these rules.

Paragraph 21:

  If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list than there
  are elements or members of an aggregate, or fewer characters in a
  string literal used to initialize an array of known size than there
  are elements in the array, the remainder of the aggregate shall be
  initialized implicitly the same as objects that have static storage
  duration.

-Peff