On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12 January 2016 at 23:14, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> It warns for all "{}" initializers. Well, I want us to use {}.
>> ---
>> configure.ac | 3 ++-
>> intel/intel_decode.c | 2 --
> The whole of libdrm, minus the intel_decode can get away without using
> such constructs. And yes that includes radeon and amdgpu.
>
> NACK on this one - please be consistent with existing code base.
Consistent with what? {} is the same as memset on each structure
member. The warning says that a structure member is initialized to
zero because of {}, which is why {} is used in the first place. It's
the same as using memset and getting a warning "memset initializes the
memory to zero". How useful is that?
libdrm does have a lot of optional warnings enabled. Mesa does not,
and Mesa does not even have this one. This means libdrm is
inconsistent with Mesa and, BTW, it's also inconsistent with the kernel.
It looks like somebody enabled optional warnings for libdrm in the
past. All I'm doing is aligning the behavior with Mesa/kernel, which
is what we would like to have and so would Intel apparently.
Do you still think we are inconsistent?
Thanks,
Marek
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
