From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Branchaud Subject: Re: /* compiler workaround */ - what was the issue? Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:30:29 -0400 Message-ID: <572CF0D5.6010305@xiplink.com> References: <17E04501C9474282B87758C7998A1F5B@PhilipOakley> <51C902B1F7464CF2B58EB0E495F86BB5@PhilipOakley> <572CDCFF.9050607@ramsayjones.plus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Philip Oakley , Duy Nguyen , Git List To: Junio C Hamano , Ramsay Jones X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 06 21:30:38 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aylSP-0004oY-6I for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 21:30:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758664AbcEFTac (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2016 15:30:32 -0400 Received: from smtp90.iad3a.emailsrvr.com ([173.203.187.90]:59889 "EHLO smtp90.iad3a.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758541AbcEFTac (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2016 15:30:32 -0400 Received: from smtp20.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp20.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 06D051805EC; Fri, 6 May 2016 15:30:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: mbranchaud@xiplink.com Received: by smtp20.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id 487EE180317; Fri, 6 May 2016 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: mbranchaud@xiplink.com Received: from [10.10.1.32] ([UNAVAILABLE]. [192.252.130.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.5.4); Fri, 06 May 2016 15:30:31 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2016-05-06 02:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I wonder if can we come up with a short and sweet notation to remind > futhre readers that this "initialization" is not initializing but > merely squelching warnings from stupid compilers, and agree to use > it consistently? Perhaps #define COMPILER_UNINITIALIZED_WARNING_INITIALIZER 0 or, for short-and-sweet #define CUWI 0 ? :) M.