From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757379Ab3K0PzB (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:55:01 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:54248 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757229Ab3K0Py5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:54:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:54:40 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Steven Rostedt , Juri Lelli , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, johan.eker@ericsson.com, p.faure@akatech.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com, michael@amarulasolutions.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it, nicola.manica@disi.unitn.it, luca.abeni@unitn.it, dhaval.giani@gmail.com, hgu1972@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@linux.it, insop.song@gmail.com, liming.wang@windriver.com, jkacur@redhat.com, harald.gustafsson@ericsson.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, bruce.ashfield@windriver.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] sched: add latency tracing for -deadline tasks. Message-ID: <20131127155440.GH789@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1383831828-15501-9-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com> <20131120163318.10253e43@gandalf.local.home> <5295F711.5010708@gmail.com> <20131127091647.4e16ce53@gandalf.local.home> <20131127142649.GC13532@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131127143435.GD25043@gmail.com> <20131127145837.GE16796@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131127153519.GA26095@gmail.com> <20131127154015.GG789@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131127154600.GC26095@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20131127154600.GC26095@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:46:00PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:35:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > So why does GCC then behave like this: > > > > I think because its a much saner behaviour; also it might still be the > > spec actually says this, its a somewhat opaque text. > > > > Anyway, yes GCC seems to behave as we 'expect' it to; I just can't find > > the language spec actually guaranteeing this. > > So from C99 standard §6.7.8 (Initialization)/21: > > "If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list than > there are elements or members of an aggregate, or fewer characters > in a string literal used to initialize an array of known size than > there are elements in the array, the remainder of the aggregate > shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have static > storage duration." > > static initialization == zeroing in this case. Hurm for some reason I thought that was for static objects only.