On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 07:21:31PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 18:49, Ville Syrjälä
> <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:59:30PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>
> >> Also let's not forget about
> >>
> >> a.c:17:20: warning: ISO C forbids empty initializer braces [-Wpedantic]
> >> struct foo f = {};
> >> ^
> >
> > I long ago decided that -pedantic is stupid, hence I don't use it.
> >
> Only tried pedantic as I couldn't find any references to "= {}" in the
> C spec. I'm not even remotely suggesting that we use it.
>
> > My gcc (4.9.3 something) seems to allow the {0} but with a struct within
> > a struct it angers -Wmissing-braces, although my reading of the spec
> The -Wmissing-braces fix might get backported for 4.8 and 4.9 [1]
>
> > suggests that it's pretty well defined how this sort of thing should
> > behave. I was expecting some kind of 'implicit pointer from integer'
> > warning when the thing it would initialize is a pointer, but didn't get
> > one. Not sure why.
> >
> > And {} of course makes -Wmissing-field-initializers upset. I can't see
> > anything in the spec to relly forbid this form, except that the syntax
> > maybe doesn't allow for an empty initializer-list.
> >
> > About the only "useful" thing I learned from the spec is that 0 is an
> > octal constant :) Makes some sense but it never occured to me before.
> >
> > So I guess all I can say is that gcc is stupid, and it should just stfu
> > and let both '= {}' and '= {0}' through without whining about it.
> >
> Luckily with the 5 series things are shaping up :-)
>
> Thanks for digging it up.
> -Emil
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Hmm. So yet another C vs. C++ difference. I guess everyone has given up
on the supposed ability of C++ to include C code.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
