[PATCH] configure.ac: disable annoying warning -Wmissing-field-initializers

[Marek Olšák]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 January 2016 at 17:43, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 15 January 2016 at 17:24, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12 January 2016 at 23:14, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak at amd.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It warns for all "{}" initializers. Well, I want us to use {}.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  configure.ac         | 3 ++-
>>>>>>  intel/intel_decode.c | 2 --
>>>>> The whole of libdrm, minus the intel_decode can get away without using
>>>>> such constructs. And yes that includes radeon and amdgpu.
>>>>>
>>>>> NACK on this one - please be consistent with existing code base.
>>>>
>>>> Consistent with what? {} is the same as memset on each structure
>>>> member. The warning says that a structure member is initialized to
>>>> zero because of {}, which is why {} is used in the first place. It's
>>>> the same as using memset and getting a warning "memset initializes the
>>>> memory to zero". How useful is that?
>>>>
>>> There was a IRC discussion along the lines of "just use memset", but
>>> for the sake of me I cannot find it.
>>>
>>>> libdrm does have a lot of optional warnings enabled. Mesa does not,
>>>> and Mesa does not even have this one. This means libdrm is
>>>> inconsistent with Mesa and, BTW, it's also inconsistent with the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like somebody enabled optional warnings for libdrm in the
>>>> past. All I'm doing is aligning the behavior with Mesa/kernel, which
>>>> is what we would like to have and so would Intel apparently.
>>>>
>>>> Do you still think we are inconsistent?
>>>>
>>> If you look throughout libdrm you'll see - c99, {} (the one that's
>>> causing you problems ?) and {0} initializers. ... And zero warnings
>>> from Wmissing-field-initializers ? Don't know what your patch does,
>>> but if things flag that normally means "you're doing something new".
>>>
>>> If if bothers you that much - drop the warning. Just the next time
>>> please don't go for "I want", it feels a bit ...
>>
>> over the top? Sorry about that.
>>
> Precisely. Apology accepted :-)
>
>> The thing is libdrm enables too many warnings. It's annoying and they
>> caused quite a lot of emotional discussion inside AMD. This is in configure.ac:
>>
>> MAYBE_WARN="-Wall -Wextra \
>> -Wsign-compare -Werror-implicit-function-declaration \
>> -Wpointer-arith -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes \
>> -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs \
>> -Wpacked -Wswitch-enum -Wmissing-format-attribute \
>> -Wstrict-aliasing=2 -Winit-self \
>> -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wold-style-definition \
>> -Wno-unused-parameter \
>> -Wno-attributes -Wno-long-long -Winline -Wshadow
>>
> A few of those are already implicit with either Wall or Wextra. Both
> of which, imho, are a must have for any serious project. If you want
> we can nuke the -Wno-foo ones :-P
>
> But seriously - it makes me think that people are rushed to write the
> code and get it out. Or perhaps a too strong "no warnings" policy ?
> After all warnings are to hint that things can be improved/might be
> wrong. If it looks trivial, just ignore it :-)

Try explaining that to people who have a compulsion to fix them or
argue about them. :) Ignore? REALLY? IGNORE???

Marek