From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43292 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oq7L1-0002Zx-Su
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:36:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Oq7L0-0005tc-Qb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:36:03 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29259)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Oq7L0-0005tN-KU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:36:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4C7BDDEE.8070706@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:35:58 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 10/14] Zero json struct with memset()
	instea of = {} to keep compiler happy.
References: <1283182547-26116-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>	<1283182547-26116-11-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<4C7BD16F.1030301@redhat.com> <4C7BD926.3030704@codemonkey.ws>
	<4C7BD9DE.8090102@redhat.com> <4C7BDC84.9070906@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4C7BDC84.9070906@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/30/2010 06:29 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Arguably, an empty initializer should be special cased, but it
>> isn't.
>
> So the warning is for old style initializer lists?  I disagree that
> it's a valid warning.  First, {} is ambiguous as it can be an empty
> list of c99 initializers and an empty list of c89 initializers.

Yes, that's what I meant.  {} should be special cased as an empty list
will rarely be a bug, even when C89 initializers are used.

> But even for c89 initializers, it's very common practice to omit
> initializers and rely on the defaulted value.  For instance, { 0 } is
> quite pervasive as an idiom.

That's why the warning is only in -Wextra.  Those are warnings that may 
clash with someone's style conventions.

Paolo