From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44868 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oq8jI-0003nc-RK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:05:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1Oq8jH-0004Zv-JS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:05:12 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39703)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1Oq8jH-0004Zn-Bh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:05:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4C7BF2CF.10804@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:05:03 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@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
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, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/30/10 18:29, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 11:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> It falls under the "missing fields in initializer" warning.  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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>>
>> I agree that Jes's original patch is ugly, but the C99 initializer is
>> an improvement.
> 
> Yes, I'm fine with your patch on it's own but I disagree with GCC's
> warnings here.

So if we pulled in Paolo's version instead, would you be happy with that?

Personally I find the memset approach prettier since it's explicit what
it does, but that is obviously down to personal preference.

Cheers,
Jes