On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 ?
That's up to you, but please note that I don't plan to stop using "= {}",
because it's the most convenient way to clear memory in a lot of
cases and takes only 4 bytes of text.
Marek
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
