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

[Emil Velikov]

On 22 January 2016 at 17:50, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 17:47, Ville Syrjälä
> <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:40:54PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 22 January 2016 at 17:29, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> > 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 {}.
>>> >
>>> So people feel against seeing/writing single extra character 0,
>>> despite that the warning has helped catch actual bug ?
>>> And now are willing to transitions 40+ cases as opposed to ~15... that
>>> feels strange to say the least.
>>
>> Does the '= { 0 }' thing even work if the first member happens to be
>> something other than an integer?
>>
> It does here with GCC 5.2.0 :-) Cannot comment about other compilers.
>
Also let's not forget about

a.c:17:20: warning: ISO C forbids empty initializer braces [-Wpedantic]
     struct foo f = {};
                    ^

-Emil