lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings
Date
On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:58 PM, <josh@joshtriplett.org> <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:37:19PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
>> Most of the others come from null-entry table initializations, i.e. {
>> 0 }, which give missing field initializer warnings.
>
> I'd suggest that such initializers should just be {}, not { 0 }, and we
> should teach compilers to specifically *not* complain about empty
> initializers even when otherwise complaining about missing fields.
> Initializing a structure to 0 is completely sensible.

I agree completely! But of course that isn't how it is now. I guess I have spent too many years stuck on a single version of gcc that I tend not to think of changing the compiler readily enough. At least now I can upgrade the compiler freely.

Made me go check to be sure. Indeed even { } still throws the missing-initializers warning with gcc 4.8.3.

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-26 23:41    [W:0.091 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site