2015-04-16 12:12, Olivier MATZ:
> On 04/15/2015 10:49 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > To initialize a structure with zeros, one field was explicitly set
> > to avoid "missing initializer" bug with old GCC (e.g. 4.4).
> > This warning is now disabled (commit <insertlater>) for old versions of GCC,
> > so the workarounds may be removed.
> >
> > These initializers should not be needed for static variables but they
> > are still used to workaround an ICC bug (see commit b2595c4aa92d).
> >
> > There is one remaining exception where {0} initializer doesn't work cleanly,
> > even with recent GCC:
> > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c:735:9:
> > error: missing braces around initializer [-Werror=missing-braces]
> > struct rte_mbuf mb_def = {0}; /* zeroed mbuf */
> >
> > Tested with GCC 4.4.7 (CentOS), 4.7.2 (Debian) and 4.9.2 (Arch).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
>
> I'm trying to compile the head of dpdk (without this patch applied),
> and I have this error with clang:
>
> ixgbe_rxtx.c:2509:41: error: missing field 'driver_name' initializer
> [-Werror,-Wmissing-field-initializers]
> struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info = { 0 };
>
> I'm wondering if adding more {0} would compile on clang, at least with
> the current clang flags.
It's fixed by adding -Wno-missing-field-initializers to clang flags.
Someone to test with ICC?
Thanks
