From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45209 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oq6jj-00047u-36
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:57:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1Oq6h6-0006m8-0s
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:55:00 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24438)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1Oq6h5-0006kq-PW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:54:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4C7BD405.4090506@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:53:41 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <4C7BD2E7.2010201@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 10/14] Zero json struct with memset()
 instea of = {} to keep compiler happy.
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, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/30/10 17:48, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 10:43 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> Yes it's technically legal. However it's painful when you try to apply
>> more aggressive warning flags looking for real bugs. 
> 
> No, this is GCC being stupid.
> 
>> I would suggest we modify the coding style to ask people to not init a
>> struct like this.
>>    
> 
> 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

I believe the comma after the last case takes care of terminating the list.

I agree that it would be nice to get gcc to not moan about this specific
case, however I will argue that my change is worth it to be able to use
the error flags, even if it is gcc being stupid.

Cheers,
Jes