Re: [PATCH] revert: initialize const value

> There are a few possible options:
> 
>   1. Instead of a variable, we could just construct an artificial
>      sentinel address like "1", "-1", etc. I think these technically
>      fall afoul of the C standard (even if we do not access them, even
>      constructing invalid pointers is not always allowed). But it's also
>      something we do elsewhere, and even happens in some standard
>      interfaces (e.g., mmap()'s MMAP_FAILED value). It does involve some
>      annoying casts, though.
> 
>   2. We can mark it as static. That gives it a definite value, but
>      perhaps makes people wonder if the static-ness is important, when
>      it's not.
> 
>   3. We can just give it a value to shut the compiler up, even though
>      nobody cares about that value.
> 
> I went with (3) here as the smallest and most obvious change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> I dunno, maybe the comment just makes things more mysterious and
> doing the casts would make it more clear what is going on.