From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF8AC4338F for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 18:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49C161158 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 18:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241249AbhHES2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2021 14:28:32 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0094.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.94]:55362 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241221AbhHES2b (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2021 14:28:31 -0400 Received: from omf02.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891DA1802EF2E; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 18:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 399661D42F7; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 18:28:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <83ffab14de1c2af00d38d532ffecdda1f9e936ab.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: prefer = {} initializations to = {0} From: Joe Perches To: Julia Lawall Cc: Dan Carpenter , Andy Whitcroft , cocci , Dwaipayan Ray , Lukas Bulwahn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 11:28:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20210805104353.GD26417@kili> <117021b44dc9ba570a0f48736d14a267a8701d0a.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.0-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 399661D42F7 X-Stat-Signature: 7rw1go6hi8mn6wqjk1fshxtz18ke3nac X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX1/ZNcsWtRe/4qfW85P24gjRbPtTDpFDiZc= X-HE-Tag: 1628188095-557803 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 20:17 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 05:27 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 13:43 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > The "= {};" style empty struct initializer is preferred over = {0}. > > > > It avoids the situation where the first struct member is a pointer and > > > > that generates a Sparse warning about assigning using zero instead of > > > > NULL. Also it's just nicer to look at. > > > > Perhaps a cocci script like the below could help too: > > > > $ cat zero_init_struct.cocci > > @@ > > identifier name; > > identifier t; > > @@ > > > > struct name t = { > > - 0 > > }; > > > > @@ > > identifier name; > > identifier t; > > identifier member; > > @@ > > > > struct name t = { > > ..., > > .member = { > > - 0 > > }, > > ..., > > }; > > My test turns up over 1900 occurrences. There is the question of whether > {} or { } is preferred. The above semantic patch replaces {0} by {} and > ( 0 } by { }. I saw that and I don't recall how to force one style or another to be output.