jfb added a comment. In D61280#1485115 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61280#1485115>, @rjmccall wrote:
> I don't think the implication is supposed to be that padding is > zero-initialized or not depending on where in the aggregate it appears, but > it doesn't really matter, I don't think we're arguing about the goal of this > patch. The way I read it, C guarantees that an aggregate's padding is zero-initialized when you use brace-enclosed list *unless* you've mentioned all the elements / members of the aggregate. Fail to mention one → padding must be zero. Mention all of them → padding isn't guaranteed. But then *reading* padding is another story. What triggered this change is C code that used `memcmp` on a struct with padding, and was expecting padding to be set. Not great code, but AFAICT technically correct. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61280/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61280 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
