On 21 January 2016 at 16:58, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 21 January 2016 at 12:08, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 18 January 2016 at 22:53, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Try explaining that to people who have a compulsion to fix them or
>>>>> argue about them. :) Ignore? REALLY? IGNORE???
>>>>>
>>>> Now that we have a few people off your back can you please point out
>>>> where this triggers warnings ?
>>>
>>> This particular warning is trigged by {}
>> As mentioned previously neither {} nor {0} trigger any warning here.
>> Jani hinted that you might be using an old (buggy?) compiler which
>> generates them.
>> Which version of GCC are you using ? Do you mind showing the first few
>> warnings ?
>>
>>> or any { ... } which doesn't
>>> initialize all members.
>>>
>> Do we have any outside of intel_decode.c ? I'm failing to spot any.
>
> amdgpu_bo.c has 7 occurences of "= {}" and they all print the warning.
With 200+ cases of memset and 40+ of "= *{ *0 *}". Any objections if I
send a patch to transition to either one of these two ?
> There are more in libdrm. I have gcc 4.9.2. If I revert this patch, I
> get this nice log:
>
Interesting... I could swear I've tried the patch with gcc 4.9.x
(currenly using 5.x). Hmm at the same time gcc does not seem to list
any -Wunused-result warnings here.
Thanks
Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
