Re: [PATCH 1/3] test-tool genzeros: initialize "zeros" to avoid SunCC warning

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2022, 19:10 UTC
Message-ID: <Yd8njHz2m099iDfL@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2201121518360.2121@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 03:21:46PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> > diff --git a/t/helper/test-genzeros.c b/t/helper/test-genzeros.c
> > index 8ca988d6216..5dc89eda0cb 100644
> > --- a/t/helper/test-genzeros.c
> > +++ b/t/helper/test-genzeros.c
> > @@ -3,8 +3,7 @@
> >
> >  int cmd__genzeros(int argc, const char **argv)
> >  {
> > -	/* static, so that it is NUL-initialized */
> > -	static const char zeros[256 * 1024];
> > +	const char zeros[256 * 1024] = { 0 };
>
> This diff does two things: add an initializer, and turn the variable into
> a `static`. The former is the actual fix that is required. The latter is
> not. During the -rc phase, we do not want to see any of the latter. It is
> unnecessarily controversial and distracting, and can easily be postponed
> until January 25th, 2022.

This assumes that making the declaration non-static isn't necessary to fix the warning from SunCC.

I would guess that in reality it probably isn't, so removing the static designation is a stray change, and this would have been easier to grok as simply:

    -	static const char zeros[256 * 1024];
    +	static const char zeros[256 * 1024] = { 0 };

But to be honest I don't think it is _that_ big of a deal to make such a small change during this point of the development cycle.

Thanks, Taylor