On 22 January 2016 at 17:47, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:40:54PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 22 January 2016 at 17:29, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > I like {} too and think we should encourage that. I'd rather
>> > transition the { 0 } stuff over to {}.
>> >
>> So people feel against seeing/writing single extra character 0,
>> despite that the warning has helped catch actual bug ?
>> And now are willing to transitions 40+ cases as opposed to ~15... that
>> feels strange to say the least.
>
> Does the '= { 0 }' thing even work if the first member happens to be
> something other than an integer?
>
It does here with GCC 5.2.0 :-) Cannot comment about other compilers.
-Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
