What does near intialization mean

[Aditya]

Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.

Thanks
Aditya

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <l0************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
....

>I am not a troll. I simply do not like Heathfield's modus operandus, his
attempts at wordy obfuscation, his constant attempts to lambast others
such as Jacob nor his self obsessed persona.

Have you missed the memo? Attacking (*) regulars == "troll" (in the
eyes of most of the regular-wannabees, especially). As I pointed out in
another post, we're now all using the modern definition of troll -
namely, someone I don't like (i.e., someone who doesn't love me).

(*) And by "attacking", we mean "displaying anything less than
sycophantic adulation".

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Nov 13, 12:03 pm, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:

Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.

Perhaps he did Google for it. I did and the only match I
get is this thread.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22...tialization%22

There are answers to the original question in the first page of
results.

I read several entries before I lost patience and I didn't
find an explanation. Furthermore googling for "near initialization
for recvedValues", which I consider more natural, only matches
this thread.

I tend not to recommend Googling without trying it and proving
to my own satisfaction that it would be of some benefit.

But one needs also to take into account how many threads and
possibly how much bogus information one would have to read before
reaching the beneficial part.

It doesn't explain the real warning, but the poster didn't ask
about the real warning...

Errrmm , he did.

As for the manual does the GCC manual
explain the rationale for warnings ? As a matter of interest
does any compiler manual do that ?

If the original poster wants to discuss specifics about gcc,
I would suggest a different newsgroup.

I agree but I don't consider his question gcc specific. In any
case writing RTFM suggests some expectation that this is the sort
of information that might be found in the manual and this is
what I'm questioning.

[Richard]

ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <l0************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
...

>>I am not a troll. I simply do not like Heathfield's modus operandus, his
attempts at wordy obfuscation, his constant attempts to lambast others
such as Jacob nor his self obsessed persona.

Have you missed the memo? Attacking (*) regulars == "troll" (in the
eyes of most of the regular-wannabees, especially). As I pointed out in
another post, we're now all using the modern definition of troll -
namely, someone I don't like (i.e., someone who doesn't love me).

(*) And by "attacking", we mean "displaying anything less than
sycophantic adulation".

Attacking is the wrong word. To appeal for a bit less "high and mighty"
is hardly attacking. The only "attacking" I see going on is when Mr H
and his little gang feel that someone with a dissenting voice might be
gaining support for a more moderate view of what's on topic here.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <mu************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
....

>(*) And by "attacking", we mean "displaying anything less than
sycophantic adulation".

Attacking is the wrong word. To appeal for a bit less "high and mighty"
is hardly attacking. The only "attacking" I see going on is when Mr H
and his little gang feel that someone with a dissenting voice might be
gaining support for a more moderate view of what's on topic here.

Did you not read the footnote:

>(*) And by "attacking", we mean "displaying anything less than
sycophantic adulation".

[Ben Bacarisse]

ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <mu************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
...

>>(*) And by "attacking", we mean "displaying anything less than
sycophantic adulation".

Attacking is the wrong word.

<snip>

Did you not read the footnote:

<snip>

And thanks for watching another episode of: "CLC Trolls ... eating
their own".

--
Ben.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <87************@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.ukwrote:

>ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

>In article <mu************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
...

>>>(*) And by "attacking", we mean "displaying anything less than
sycophantic adulation".

Attacking is the wrong word.

<snip>

>Did you not read the footnote:

<snip>

And thanks for watching another episode of: "CLC Trolls ... eating
their own".

They always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I am deeply touched.

[Mark Bluemel]

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:03 pm, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:

>Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

>>On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Perhaps he did Google for it. I did and the only match I
get is this thread.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22...tialization%22

There are answers to the original question in the first page of
results.

I read several entries before I lost patience and I didn't
find an explanation.

I felt that the second entry explained all that needed to be explained
about the warning. YMMV.

Furthermore googling for "near initialization
for recvedValues", which I consider more natural, only matches
this thread.

I can't imagine why Google would be expected to have information about
recvedValues - a variable name specific to Aditya's code.

[Snip]

>It doesn't explain the real warning, but the poster didn't ask
about the real warning...

Errrmm , he did.

OK - I'll put it another way, (s)he'd didn't ask about the useful part
of the warning.

>>As for the manual does the GCC manual
explain the rationale for warnings ? As a matter of interest
does any compiler manual do that ?

If the original poster wants to discuss specifics about gcc,
I would suggest a different newsgroup.

I agree but I don't consider his question gcc specific. In any
case writing RTFM suggests some expectation that this is the sort
of information that might be found in the manual and this is
what I'm questioning.

I'm not convinced I have any more to add to this thread. My initial post
was almost certainly ill-considered.

Others have addressed Aditya's issue more than adequately.

As far as I'm concerned, in the words of the editor of the Times, "this
correspondence is closed".

[James Kuyper]

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:03 pm, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:

>Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

>>On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Perhaps he did Google for it. I did and the only match I
get is this thread.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22...tialization%22

There are answers to the original question in the first page of
results.

I read several entries before I lost patience and I didn't
find an explanation. ...

??? When I ran that query, the very first result was a link to
<http://lists.apple.com/archives/Objc-language/2005/Feb/msg00021.html>,
where essentially the same question was being asked. Clicking on the
"Next by thread:" link on that web page took me to
<http://lists.apple.com/archives/Objc-language/2005/Feb/msg00022.html>,
which gave exactly the correct and most relevant answer. In my
experience, this is an unusually effective Google result.

....

>It doesn't explain the real warning, but the poster didn't ask
about the real warning...

Errrmm , he did.

In the original message, he only complained about the part of the
warning message that explained where the problem could be found. He did
not give the text of the message which explained what the problem
actually was.

However, if he had simply included the complete actual output from his
attempt to compile the code, it would have been trivial for people to
explain what the real problem was.

[Richard]

Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.ukwrites:

ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

>In article <mu************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
...

>>>(*) And by "attacking", we mean "displaying anything less than
sycophantic adulation".

Attacking is the wrong word.

<snip>

>Did you not read the footnote:

<snip>

And thanks for watching another episode of: "CLC Trolls ... eating
their own".

Wonderful timing on your part. Well done.

[Richard]

Mark Bluemel <ma**********@pobox.comwrites:

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
I'm not convinced I have any more to add to this thread. My initial
post was almost certainly ill-considered.

So you agree you were wrong.

Good.

It's all I was pointing out.

>
Others have addressed Aditya's issue more than adequately.

As far as I'm concerned, in the words of the editor of the Times,
"this correspondence is closed".

Indeed.

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Dollin said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>Chris, he's a troll. You know this. What did you expect, objectivity?

At this time, I don't believe he's a troll.

Fair enough. I thought the same once, so I can hardly complain.

(Being an argumentative
bagrag doesn't make him a troll; otherwise, for example, I'd qualify.)

It wasn't his argumentativeness I had in mind. Still, obviously it's your
call.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Nov 14, 12:26 pm, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:03 pm, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Perhaps he did Google for it. I did and the only match I
get is this thread.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22...tialization%22

There are answers to the original question in the first page of
results.

I read several entries before I lost patience and I didn't
find an explanation.

I felt that the second entry explained all that needed to be explained
about the warning. YMMV.

Furthermore googling for "near initialization
for recvedValues", which I consider more natural, only matches
this thread.

I can't imagine why Google would be expected to have information about
recvedValues - a variable name specific to Aditya's code.

Ok , you got me there , that was silly on my part.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Nov 14, 12:40 pm, James Kuyper <[e-mail]:

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:03 pm, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Perhaps he did Google for it. I did and the only match I
get is this thread.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22...tialization%22

There are answers to the original question in the first page of
results.

I read several entries before I lost patience and I didn't
find an explanation. ...

??? When I ran that query, the very first result was a link to
<http://lists.apple.com/archives/Objc-language/2005/Feb/msg00021.html>,
where essentially the same question was being asked. Clicking on the
"Next by thread:" link on that web page took me to
<http://lists.apple.com/archives/Objc-language/2005/Feb/msg00022.html>,
which gave exactly the correct and most relevant answer. In my
experience, this is an unusually effective Google result.

You are right , the second entry does indeed explain the
warning. I skimmed through the first 2 entries , rejected
the 1st on the basis that it seemed to be talking about
Objective-C and rejected the 2nd on the basis that it seemed
to be a continuation of the 1st thread. I should have read
more carefully.

[CBFalconer]

Spoon wrote:

Richard wrote:

>I simply do not like [his] modus operandus [...]

Nitpick. It's "modus operandi".

Nitnitpick. Operandus. He only has one.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Francine.Neary]

On Nov 15, 2:23 am, CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

Spoon wrote:

Richard wrote:

I simply do not like [his] modus operandus [...]

Nitpick. It's "modus operandi".

Nitnitpick. Operandus. He only has one.

Nitnitnitpick. Operandi is correct (it's a genitive singular).

>
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

[Joe Wright]

Fr************@googlemail.com wrote:

On Nov 15, 2:23 am, CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

>Spoon wrote:

>>Richard wrote:
I simply do not like [his] modus operandus [...]
Nitpick. It's "modus operandi".

Nitnitpick. Operandus. He only has one.

Nitnitnitpick. Operandi is correct (it's a genitive singular).

The C language is not hard enough, now we deal with the L language? :-)

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---