Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail
From: Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Python Front-end to GCC
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:49:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <l46hcm$h4j$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <4012031f-5334-4be8-a673-e0d8c8917fb2@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1295.1382326510.18130.python-list@python.org> <5264dbbe$0$30000$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.1308.1382349341.18130.python-list@python.org> <5265bba8$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.1345.1382433285.18130.python-list@python.org> <526668e5$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.1354.1382450725.18130.python-list@python.org> <52669852$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <l4667u$bke$2@reader1.panix.com> <5266aa80$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <l46ahj$i4q$1@dont-email.me> <5266b496$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl.comtrol.com
X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1382467798 17555 64.122.56.22 (22 Oct 2013 18:49:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:49:58 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:57299

On 2013-10-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:53:07 +0000, Frank Miles wrote:
>
> [snip C code]
>> What you're missing is that arr[] is an automatic variable.  Put a
>> "static" in front of it, or move it outside the function (to become
>> global) and you'll see the difference.
>
> Ah, that makes sense. Thanks to everyone who corrected my 
> misunderstanding.
>
> Well, actually, no it doesn't. I wonder why C specifies such behaviour? 
> Why would you want non-global arrays to be filled with garbage?

Firstly, it's not non-global arrays that have undefined contents. 
It's _auto_ arrays that have undefined contents.

void foo(void)
{
  int a[4];   // non-global, _auto_ variable and has undefined contents
}

void bar(void)
{
  static int a[4];  // non-global, _static_ variable initially 0's
}

As to _why_ it's that way, you'd have to ask the guys who decided
that.  I supect it's because zeroing static variables involves very
little run-time overhead, while zeroing auto variables could cause
huge amounts of overhead if that auto variable is declared inside the
innermost of nested loops.  [Presumably a good optimizing compiler
would not zero an auto variable that was always set before it was
referenced, but it takes a lot of smarts for compiler to figure that
out correctly 100% of the time -- probably more smarts than a PDP-11
had room for.]

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Let's send the
                                  at               Russians defective
                              gmail.com            lifestyle accessories!