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
