From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34678 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oq7de-0001ui-Da
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:55:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <froydnj@codesourcery.com>) id 1Oq7dd-0001cq-Cz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:55:18 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]:59445)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <froydnj@codesourcery.com>) id 1Oq7dd-0001cL-4h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:55:17 -0400
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:55:13 -0700
From: Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 10/14] Zero json struct with memset()
	instea of = {} to keep compiler happy.
Message-ID: <20100830165513.GG16898@codesourcery.com>
References: <1283182547-26116-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<1283182547-26116-11-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<4C7BD0CE.6020505@codemonkey.ws> <4C7BD19C.9080308@redhat.com>
	<4C7BD2E7.2010201@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C7BD2E7.2010201@codemonkey.ws>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> No, this is GCC being stupid.
>
> How else do you terminate a list?  IOW:
>
> MyDeviceInfo device_infos[] = {
>   {"foo", 0, 2},
>   {"bar", 0, 1},
>   {} /* or { 0 } */
> };
>
> This is such a pervasive idiom that there's simply no way that GCC can  
> possibly try to warn against this.  Plus, it's entirely reasonable.
>
> I think this is just a false positive in GCC.  Otherwise, there's a ton  
> of code that it should be throwing warnings against.

Well, it sounds like Jes was compiling QEMU was extra warning flags, and
I doubt people do much beyond -Wall and maybe one or two others.

I could see petitioning GCC to only complain if -pedantic.

-Nathan