On 15 January 2016 at 17:24, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 12 January 2016 at 23:14, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak at amd.com>
>>>
>>> It warns for all "{}" initializers. Well, I want us to use {}.
>>> ---
>>> configure.ac | 3 ++-
>>> intel/intel_decode.c | 2 --
>> The whole of libdrm, minus the intel_decode can get away without using
>> such constructs. And yes that includes radeon and amdgpu.
>>
>> NACK on this one - please be consistent with existing code base.
>
> Consistent with what? {} is the same as memset on each structure
> member. The warning says that a structure member is initialized to
> zero because of {}, which is why {} is used in the first place. It's
> the same as using memset and getting a warning "memset initializes the
> memory to zero". How useful is that?
>
There was a IRC discussion along the lines of "just use memset", but
for the sake of me I cannot find it.
> libdrm does have a lot of optional warnings enabled. Mesa does not,
> and Mesa does not even have this one. This means libdrm is
> inconsistent with Mesa and, BTW, it's also inconsistent with the kernel.
>
> It looks like somebody enabled optional warnings for libdrm in the
> past. All I'm doing is aligning the behavior with Mesa/kernel, which
> is what we would like to have and so would Intel apparently.
>
> Do you still think we are inconsistent?
>
If you look throughout libdrm you'll see - c99, {} (the one that's
causing you problems ?) and {0} initializers. ... And zero warnings
from Wmissing-field-initializers ? Don't know what your patch does,
but if things flag that normally means "you're doing something new".
If if bothers you that much - drop the warning. Just the next time
please don't go for "I want", it feels a bit ...
Thanks,
Emil
