From -1925962669085484361 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e2cfdf64f67c7793 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.zanker.org!news.clara.net!wagner.news.clara.net!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: esben@despammed.com (Esben Mose Hansen) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Eliminating uninitialised variables Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:22:49 GMT Organization: TDC Totalloesninger Lines: 33 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <4166ebbe$0$237$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> References: <41573b0a$0$29917$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> <2rsojaF1cph0rU1@uni-berlin.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1097266974 14700 158.152.254.254 (8 Oct 2004 20:22:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:22:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64-mulga_r1 (2004-01-11) on mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64-mulga_r1 X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id i98KMn5x028094; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:22:49 +1000 (EST) X-Spam-Level: X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:3023 Peter van Merkerk wrote: > Stephen Howe wrote: >> I have to say in the past 5 years, I have not been bitten once by >> "uninitialised variables". > That doesn't mean there aren't any in the code you written, and it might > surface at the worst possible time. The problem with uninitialized > variables is that the code may work just fine on your system, and pass > all tests and yet blow up in the face of the customer. If you lurk > around newsgroups you do see every now and then people asking why debug > builds work fine and release builds fail miserably. This is typically > caused by uninitialized variables. http://valgrind.kde.org/ would be your friend, here. As a bonus, your code get tested for memory leaks, too. Once upon a time, it was said that one tool should do one job only. Now a days compilers seems to be required to do some (rather poor) linting as well. Why is this? -- mvh. Esben Mose Hansen homepage: www.mosehansen.dk --xxx-- GPG fingerprint: www.mosehansen.dk/about.html --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]