On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 02:52:31PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 03:59:22PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>
> > > +# prefer = {}; to = {0};
> > > + if ($line =~ /= \{ *0 *\}/) {
> > > + WARN("ZERO_INITIALIZER",
> > > + "= {} is preferred over = {0}\n" . $herecurr);
>
> Sigh... "is preferred over" by whom? Use the active voice, would you?
>
> > [1] and [2] state that {} and {0} don't have the same effect. So if correct,
> > this is not only a matter of style.
> >
> > When testing with gcc 10.3.0, I arrived at the conclusion that both {} and
> > {0} HAVE the same behavior (i.e the whole structure and included structures
> > are completely zeroed) and I don't have a C standard to check what the rules
> > are.
> > gcc online doc didn't help me either.
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf, but empty
> initializer-list is gccism anyway.
>
> Section 6.7.8 is the one to look through there.
That's out of date. It changed in C11. Both = { 0 } and = { } will
clear out struct holes. The = { } GCC extension has always initialized
struct holes.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf
For partial initializations then all the padding is zeroed.
Unfortunately if you fully initialize the struct then padding is not
initialized.
regards,
dan carpenter
