On 20/05/2020 21:40, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:22:22AM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> I remember the discussion (on lkml and sparse ml) in which
>> there was general agreement that '{}' would be preferred
>> solution (if only it was standard C!). However, I thought
>> that (since some compilers don't support it e.g. msvc) the
>> next best solution would be for sparse to suppress the
>> warning if given the '= { 0 }' token sequence. (ie. no mention
>> of it being conditional on a option).
>
> Yes, I kinda agree but concerning the kernel, my understanding is
> that the warning is desired (cfr. https://marc.info/?t=154704602900003 )
Oh, my lord, I had no recollection of that thread - and it was
only just over a year ago! ;-P
Hmm, yes it's a shame, but I guess the kernel usage takes precedence.
> For example, for cases like:
> int *array[16] = { 0 };
>
> So, I want to keep the current behavior as the default.
>
>>> @@ -2750,6 +2750,13 @@ static struct token *initializer_list(struct expression_list **list, struct toke
>>> {
>>> struct expression *expr;
>>>
>>> + // '{ 0 }' is equivalent to '{ }' unless wanting all possible
>>> + // warnings about using '0' to initialize a null-pointer.
>>> + if (!Wuniversal_initializer) {
>>> + if (match_token_zero(token) && match_op(token->next, '}'))
>>> + token = token->next;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> Ha! This made me LOL! (see my patch below).
>>
>> So simple. (I did think, at first, that deleting the '0' token was
>> not a good idea - then I realized that it's more like skipping/ignoring
>> the token than deleting it.)
>
> Well ... I'm lazy, so ... and it gave me the garantee that it will
> behave exactly like '{ }'.
>
>> The patch below was (I think) my third attempt. If memory serves
>> me, the first patch attempted to determine the '{0}' initializer
>> from the 'struct expession *' passed to bad_null() alone. However,
>> that did not allow me to distinguish '= { 0 }' from '= { 0, }',
>> so I needed to backup from evaluation to the parse.
>
> I think it's fine to allow the comma, I probably need to change
> this is my version.
No, No, that would definitely be wrong. In fact, I would go further
and say _only_ '= { 0 } ;' should suppress the warning (yes I added
the semi-colon). (I did think that maybe other forms of 'integer
constant with value zero' could be added; e.g. 0x0, but I am not
sure even that is useful).
['designated initializers' would also not work to suppress the
warnings, of course!]
BTW, I was not entirely convinced by the git-list discussion which
lead to this patch. However, limiting the suppression of the warning
to _just_ '= { 0 } ;' would leave the majority of use-cases issuing
the warning anyway. The main benefit would be, as argued by others,
that when you switch the order/type of fields in a struct (say) that
you would not have to change the initializer from/to {0}/{NULL}.
(Again, I don't see that as a huge advantage ...)
>> Also, I didn't test the initialization of embedded struct/array fields
>> (and what should happen anyway? should '{ 0 }' also work for initializing
>> the sub-structure(s), or should it only work at the top-level?).
And so, given the above, I don't think the warnings should be suppressed
on sub-structures.
> In fact, it works for literally anything: simple arrays, multi-dimensional
> arrays (it must be because the braces doesn't need to match:
> int a[2][2] = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
Heh, yes indeed.
> is perfectly legal), structures with a scalar as first member, more complex
> strutures, sub-structures, and more suprisingly even for simple types:
> int a = { 0 };
> _Bool b = { 0 };
> double f = { 0 };
> int *ptr = { 0 };
Ah, yes, I wonder if that would be a problem. ;-)
My initial reaction would be that non-aggregate types would still
issue warnings (even with ={0};), but that starts getting harder
to do ... :(
I don't have any simple answers.
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
