Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: static versus auto initialization
Message-ID: <1953@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 89 21:15:41 GMT
References: <8901182125.AA06523@decwrl.dec.com> <2877@hound.UUCP> <876@auspex.UUCP>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 17

In article <876@auspex.UUCP> guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
>
> >... for Auto there is actual code to only initialize the specified
> >elements, the rest defaulting to whatever was in the memory
> >allocated for the array.
>
>Which, of course, won't be true on any ANSI C-conformant compiler
>[...] the pANS says the implementation has to
>initialize the unspecified elements the same way it would have
>initialized them had they been static.

Is that not going to add an aeon or two to the running time of some of
the more structured (read:  function-laden) programs?

				--Blair
				  "Well...I _could_ use the extra
				   time for lunch..."