Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To turn off this warning one needs to pass -Wno-missing-field-initializers.
OK, but I'm afraid the ship has already sailed with gcc -W on
Coreutils. Coreutils has several other places where gcc -W issues
bogus warnings (typically about signed vs unsigned comparisons), and
we're not inclined to change those either. People who want to use gcc
-W have to figure out how to ignore these bogus warnings, and adding a
few more bogus warnings to the list shouldn't hurt all that much.
I think gcc -W ought to get fixed to match typical programming style,
not the reverse. Until this gets done we might as well not worry
_too_ much about what gcc -W says. "The compiler should be your
servant, not your master."
That being said, I can see where others might differ, so I installed
only the coreutils part of the change (leaving gnulib alone), with the
following corrected ChangeLog entry.
2006-10-10 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* src/ls.c (quote_name): Use initializer rather than memset to
initialize an object to zero. This is easier to read and is less
likely to introduce an runtime error due to a mixup. It causes
gcc -W to issue a warning, but you can work around this by
appending -Wno-missing-field-initializers.
* src/pathchk.c (portable_chars_only): Likewise.
* src/shred.c (main): Likewise.
* src/stty.c (main): Likewise.
* src/tr.c (card_of_complement): Likewise.
* src/wc.c (wc): Likewise.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
