[U-Boot] use of C99

[Premi, Sanjeev]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Warren [mailto:biggerbadderben at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:33 AM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: Timur Tabi; Jerry Van Baren; U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
> 
> Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de 
> >> [mailto:u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Timur Tabi
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:55 AM
> >> To: Jerry Van Baren
> >> Cc: U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
> >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Jerry Van Baren 
> >> <gerald.vanbaren at ge.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>     
> >>> ACK.  I don't expect to see variables spring into life in 
> >>>       
> >> the middle of
> >>     
> >>> nowhere.
> >>>       
> >> I don't see what's wrong with that.  The advantage is that the
> >> variable is close to where it's being used, so that you can see the
> >> context more easily.
> >>
> >>     
> >>> If I'm not confused, I've seen block-local u-boot 
> variables, has the
> >>> advantages of being more distinctive and limits the 
> lifetime of the
> >>> variable.
> >>>       
> >> I don't see what the value is of limiting the lifetime of the
> >> variable.  The compiler isn't going to use that as a hint, anyway.
> >> It's just going to use this for syntax checking.  If you define and
> >> initialize a variable at the top of the function, but 
> don't use that
> >> variable until a hundred lines later, the compiler is going to
> >> initialize the variable when it's first used, not when the 
> function is
> >> first entered.  Chances are it's not even going to define 
> stack space
> >> for it. 
> >>     
> >
> > One of the biggest problem is uncontrolled variable definitions that
> > gets even nasty when variables have same names with different types;
> > though under different set of #ifdefs. Quite possible for commonly
> > used variable names - i, ptr, tmp, etc.
> >
> >   
> I'm showing extreme ignorance here, but does C99 let you do this?
> 
> for (int i = 0; i < x ; i++) ?

That's much better contained than declaring in a ifdef. 

> Doing a lot of C++ has rotted my brain, but this is one thing I like.

I love C++; still avoid declare as you go.
Iterators (as you mention above) are only exception.

~sanjeev
> 
> regards,
> Ben
> 
>