On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:58 PM, <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:37:19PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote: >> Most of the others come from null-entry table initializations, i.e. { >> 0 }, which give missing field initializer warnings. > > I'd suggest that such initializers should just be {}, not { 0 }, and we > should teach compilers to specifically *not* complain about empty > initializers even when otherwise complaining about missing fields. > Initializing a structure to 0 is completely sensible. I agree completely! But of course that isn't how it is now. I guess I have spent too many years stuck on a single version of gcc that I tend not to think of changing the compiler readily enough. At least now I can upgrade the compiler freely. Made me go check to be sure. Indeed even { } still throws the missing-initializers warning with gcc 4.8.3. -- Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail