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

[Jan Vesely]

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 12:48 -0500, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, 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
> > > > > @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.vel
> > > > > > > ikov 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 gm
> > > > > > > > > > ail.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?
> 
> No. That's why I like {}. Otherwise you end up doing
> {{{{{{{{{{0}}}}}}}}}.

ISO C99
According to 6.7.8 20 all braces but the outermost ones are optional.
{}, on the other hand, is not allowed by syntax rules.

Jan


> 
>   -ilia
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- 
Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20160122/036efd7e/attachment.sig>