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

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 January 2016 at 16:58, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21 January 2016 at 12:08, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 18 January 2016 at 22:53, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Try explaining that to people who have a compulsion to fix them or
>>>>>>> argue about them. :) Ignore? REALLY? IGNORE???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that we have a few people off your back can you please point out
>>>>>> where this triggers warnings ?
>>>>>
>>>>> This particular warning is trigged by {}
>>>> As mentioned previously neither {} nor {0} trigger any warning here.
>>>> Jani hinted that you might be using an old (buggy?) compiler which
>>>> generates them.
>>>> Which version of GCC are you using ? Do you mind showing the first few
>>>> warnings ?
>>>>
>>>>> or any { ... } which doesn't
>>>>> initialize all members.
>>>>>
>>>> Do we have any outside of intel_decode.c ? I'm failing to spot any.
>>>
>>> amdgpu_bo.c has 7 occurences of "= {}" and they all print the warning.
>> With 200+ cases of memset and 40+ of "= *{ *0 *}". Any objections if I
>> send a patch to transition to either one of these two ?
>
> That's up to you, but please note that I don't plan to stop using "= {}",
> because it's the most convenient way to clear memory in a lot of
> cases and takes only 4 bytes of text.

I like {} too and think we should encourage that. I'd rather
transition the { 0 } stuff over to {}.

  -ilia