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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 AE8B3C4338F for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 18:17:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD5C61104 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 18:17:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241094AbhHESSN (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2021 14:18:13 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:8798 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241085AbhHESSM (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2021 14:18:12 -0400 IronPort-HdrOrdr: =?us-ascii?q?A9a23=3ABEs77KNyV830xsBcT63255DYdb4zR+YMi2TD?= =?us-ascii?q?iHoBLiC9I/bo8/xGws5rsCMc0AxhJk3I6urwSZVoIEmsqqKdhLNhW4tKMzOWxF?= =?us-ascii?q?dARrsO0WLd+Uy/J8STzJ8B6U4CSdkyNDSTNykEsS+g2njjLz9I+rDum8zG9IWu?= =?us-ascii?q?tgYUcexzUdAC0+4eMHfGLqRYfngWOXNTLuvE2iMznUvcRZ1hVLXAOpBqZZm5mz?= =?us-ascii?q?UL/KiWOSIuNloC0k2jnDmo4Ln1H1yzxREFSQ5Cxr8k7CzsjxH5zr/LiYD19jbs?= =?us-ascii?q?k0voq7hGktrozdVOQOaWjNIOFznqggG0IKx8Rry5uiwvqu3H0idlrDCMmWZhAy?= =?us-ascii?q?w/g0mhP11dkyGdmTUI4wxerkMK/GXowkcK+aTCNXYH4oR69MVkm1DimjodVZlH?= =?us-ascii?q?odF29lPck5JWCBfJm2DU/sHSUQ5nmw6dvBMZ4KguZ/M2a/pEVFY9l+YiFQVuYd?= =?us-ascii?q?s9NRO/16wdLclFJOSZxM8TSU+TdHjfo2lpzJiNcx0IcCuucww8lvep8xJ/uTRY?= =?us-ascii?q?9g8j7uQ5uVssnahdd7B0o9vpCZlJvplqCu8uKZhlDONEe8GwEWCle3Lx2U+pUC?= =?us-ascii?q?La/Zs8Sjvwgo+y5K9w6PCheZQOwpd3kJPdUElAvWp3f071E8WB0JBC7xiIGQyG?= =?us-ascii?q?LH/Q49Ab44I8tqz3RbLtPyHGQFcyk9G4q/FaBsHAQf68NJ9fHvemJ2rzHoRC2R?= =?us-ascii?q?H4RvBpWDEjueguy5wGsn6107b2w9fRx5nmmd7oVc3Q+RZNYBKMPkc+?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,296,1620684000"; d="scan'208";a="522911521" Received: from 173.121.68.85.rev.sfr.net (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.121.173]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Aug 2021 20:17:56 +0200 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 20:17:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Joe Perches cc: Dan Carpenter , Andy Whitcroft , cocci , Dwaipayan Ray , Lukas Bulwahn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: prefer = {} initializations to = {0} In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20210805104353.GD26417@kili> <117021b44dc9ba570a0f48736d14a267a8701d0a.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org 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 { }. julia