Re: [PATCH] configure.ac: disable annoying warning -Wmissing-field-initializers

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
Cc: ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] configure.ac: disable annoying warning -Wmissing-field-initializers
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:47:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160122174700.GP23290@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACvgo52dakn8OmVG8fXG9r5XqdMW_HNqcUUORsL-=sPxWkDhiw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:40:54PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 17:29, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Marek Olšák <maraeo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 21 January 2016 at 16:58, Marek Olšák <maraeo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 21 January 2016 at 12:08, Marek Olšák <maraeo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 18 January 2016 at 22:53, Marek Olšák <maraeo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Try explaining that to people who have a compulsion to fix them or
> >>>>>>>> argue about them. :) Ignore? REALLY? IGNORE???
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now that we have a few people off your back can you please point out
> >>>>>>> where this triggers warnings ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This particular warning is trigged by {}
> >>>>> As mentioned previously neither {} nor {0} trigger any warning here.
> >>>>> Jani hinted that you might be using an old (buggy?) compiler which
> >>>>> generates them.
> >>>>> Which version of GCC are you using ? Do you mind showing the first few
> >>>>> warnings ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> or any { ... } which doesn't
> >>>>>> initialize all members.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Do we have any outside of intel_decode.c ? I'm failing to spot any.
> >>>>
> >>>> amdgpu_bo.c has 7 occurences of "= {}" and they all print the warning.
> >>> With 200+ cases of memset and 40+ of "= *{ *0 *}". Any objections if I
> >>> send a patch to transition to either one of these two ?
> >>
> >> That's up to you, but please note that I don't plan to stop using "= {}",
> >> because it's the most convenient way to clear memory in a lot of
> >> cases and takes only 4 bytes of text.
> >
> > I like {} too and think we should encourage that. I'd rather
> > transition the { 0 } stuff over to {}.
> >
> So people feel against seeing/writing single extra character 0,
> despite that the warning has helped catch actual bug ?
> And now are willing to transitions 40+ cases as opposed to ~15... that
> feels strange to say the least.

Does the '= { 0 }' thing even work if the first member happens to be
something other than an integer?

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel