From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13228 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 09:16:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 13212 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 09:16:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:16:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3I9FnKl004069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:15:50 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3I9Fm2F020866; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:15:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8E8644.5020902@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:21:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Doug Evans , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFA] Ensure result of make_cleanup is never NULL. References: <20120416144011.GH2852@adacore.com> <4F8C3350.1030601@redhat.com> <20120418010557.GW2852@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20120418010557.GW2852@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00546.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2012 02:05 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> btw, I thought about making cleanup_sentinel const here, for a bit of >> extra robustness. > > Sounds like a good idea. And also, I was wondering if it made sense > to initialize the sentinel struct to `{ 0 }', even if we do not > actually access the contents of that specific struct instance? Not really necessary. C does that implicitly to all uninitialized global variables. -- Pedro Alves