From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HEADER_SPAM
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fc772,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-15 03:05:01 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!not-for-mail
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Terje_Sletteb=F8?= <tslettebo@chello.no.nospam>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++.moderated
Subject: Re: C bug of the day
Date: 15 Jun 2003 06:07:17 -0400
Organization: unknown
Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
Message-ID: <lvRGa.11792$KF1.273569@amstwist00>
References: <1054751321.434656@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
  <memo.20030605193115.9141A@brangdon.madasafish.com>
  <d6652001.0306100323.338a2a1c@posting.google.com>
  <Xns9396BDBB14558jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
  <bc8423$gt53a$1@ID-14036.news.dfncis.de>
  <bc9h7j$gm42t$1@ID-14036.news.dfncis.de>
  <Xns9398BD1E07E3Ejimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
  <WXiGa.11515$KF1.273500@amstwist00>
  <Fn2dnUzrDqr3YXSjXTWQlg@giganews.com>
  <9PWcnbLRQfCMCHajXTWcpQ@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Original-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 05:16:03 +0200
X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated
	iQBVAwUAPuxFUEHMCo9UcraBAQHCqQIAhnHeRJA05Xrmml4kpH390+ks5H+QRNcD
	ItRsNOoHy1SvI9w4L5egoBZMuAxGX5gCIzER8T0zfTdURf0C9NWLCw==
	=8QJm
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39194 comp.lang.c++.moderated:68391
Date: 2003-06-15T06:07:17-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Wesley Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:9PWcnbLRQfCMCHajXTWcpQ@gbronline.com...
 >
 > >  > > If your suggestion was adopted, how would it affect existing
 > >  > > programs? For that matter, why would you ever *want*
 > uninitialized
 > >  > > variables?
 > >  >
 > >  > Reading from streams is an obvious example:
 > >  >
 > >  > int i;
 > >  >
 > >  > stream >> i;
 > >  >
 > >  > Intialising "i" beforehand would just be wasteful.
 >
 > I would think even a mediocre compiler would optimize away
 > an obiously useless initialization.

I wouldn't count on that.

Especially if the definition of istream.operator(int) is in another
translation unit, it usually can't look across translation units at
definitions, so it won't know what it does.


Regards,

Terje

      [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ]
      [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]