Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Mon, 13 Sep 2021 12:40:41 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] treewide: Remove unnamed static initializations to 0 |
| |
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:52 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > Since "= { 0 }" and "= { }" have the same meaning ("incomplete > initializer") they will both initialize the given variable to zero > (modulo padding games). > > After this change, I can almost build the "allmodconfig" target with > GCC 4.9 again. > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > --- > With this patch and the following three, I can build with gcc 4.9 again: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210910223332.3224851-1-keescook@chromium.org/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210910223409.3225001-1-keescook@chromium.org/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210910223613.3225685-1-keescook@chromium.org/ > I look forward to raising our minimum GCC version again! :)
So this was one of the patches I left in my pending queue, and I don't exactly hate it, but given the option to just say "don't use gcc-4.9" and applying this big patch, I did the former.
That said, one of the reasons I didn't like the patch that much is that it seems to be a mindless "just search-and-replace everything", very much for initializers that didn't complain even with gcc-4.9, and that were entirely correct.
I would _not_ mind a patch that actually fixed only the places where it actually _is_ a question of missing braces, and we have an unnamed union or something like that.
So some of the gcc-4.9 warnings certainly looked at least _somewhat_ reasonable for a compiler that didn't do unnamed unions or structures very well.
And I wouldn't mind replacing those. But this patch seems to then change entirely correct code that no reasonable compiler could possibly warn about. I wonder if some coccinelle script or other would find a much more reasonable subset?
With the gcc-4.9 support being dropped, that probably doesn't matter any more, of course. But I just wanted to say that I didn't hate the patch, but that it seemed to be too much of an automated hammer for the problem that could be solved a lot more surgically.
The three remaining patches you point at look interesting, although I think that third one looks decidedly odd. Why not add the 'const' in the callers instead of removing it from the function? And why don't I see those warnings - is this some compiler bug?
Linus
| |