On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Marek Olšák maraeo@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@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 January 2016 at 12:08, Marek Olšák maraeo@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2016 at 22:53, Marek Olšák maraeo@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