Can Q_GLOBAL_STATIC replace KStaticDelete ?

[Michael Pyne]

On Monday 22 January 2007 18:39, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 January 2007 00:29, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > >>+static bool _k_static_##NAME##_destroyed = false;
> > >
> > >Don't initialise the variable. This saves us 4 bytes in the executable.
> >
> > Forget what I said above. The compiler is smart enough to know that
> > initialising to 0 is the same as placing on the .bss. So, by all means,
> > initialise it.
>
> Sure ? I didn't know that. All versions of gcc ? In all optimization levels
> ? For variables of which types ?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions but I don't think it really 
matters.

I'd rather be safe and initialize a value and perhaps take a 4 byte hit rather 
than leave it uninitialized and rig it so that the value is initialized 
before it is used.  (Either by some sort of init function or maybe a compiler 
flag to force into .bss?)

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070122/6772c145/attachment.sig>