lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Add braces to initialize task_info subojects
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:24 PM Richard Smith <richardsmith@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:26 PM Nathan Chancellor
>> <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Clang warns if there are missing braces around a subobject
>> > initializer.
>> >
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c:1447:41: warning: suggest braces
>> > around initialization of subobject [-Wmissing-braces]
>> > struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
>> > ^
>> > {}
>> > 1 warning generated.
>> >
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c:262:41: warning: suggest braces
>> > around initialization of subobject [-Wmissing-braces]
>> > struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
>> > ^
>> > {}
>> > 1 warning generated.
>> >
>> > Reported-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c | 2 +-
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c | 2 +-
>> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
>> > index 9333109b210d..968cc1b8cdff 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
>> > @@ -1444,7 +1444,7 @@ static int gmc_v8_0_process_interrupt(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>> > gmc_v8_0_set_fault_enable_default(adev, false);
>> >
>> > if (printk_ratelimit()) {
>> > - struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
>> > + struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { { 0 } };
>>
>> Hi Nathan,
>> Thanks for this patch. I discussed this syntax with our language
>> lawyers. Turns out, this is not quite correct, as you're now saying
>> "initialize the first subobject to zero, but not the rest of the
>> object." -Wmissing-field-initializers would highlight this, but it's
>> not part of -Wall. It would be more correct to zero initialize the
>> full struct, including all of its subobjects with `= {};`.
>
>
> Sorry, I think I've caused some confusion here.
>
> Elements with an omitted initializer get implicitly zero-initialized. In C++, it's idiomatic to write `= {}` to perform aggregate zero-initialization, but in C, that's invalid because at least one initializer is syntactically required within the braces. As a result, `= {0}` is an idiomatic way to perform zero-initialization of an aggregate in C.

That doesn't seem to be the case:
https://godbolt.org/z/TZzfo6 shouldn't Clang warn in the case of bar()?

> Clang intends to suppress the -Wmissing-braces in that case; if the warning is still being produced in a recent version of Clang, that's a bug. However, the warning suppression was added between Clang 5 and Clang 6, so it's very plausible that the compiler being used here is simply older than the warning fix.
>
> (Long story short: the change here seems fine, but should be unnecessary as of Clang 6.)

The warning was identified from clang-8 ToT synced yesterday.

--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-13 01:14    [W:0.054 / U:7.480 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site