On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:46 AM, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:26:46 +0200
> Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:04:36 +0200
>> > Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19:51PM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> >> > C Standard guarantees that { 0 } will do a correct zero initialization.
>> >> > We use this for consistency across the project.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> See 392b4b663c450f5522f7c1442da91f7647db6bf0
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >
>> > These warnings go against what the C standard allows.
>>
>> No reason to start causing them just for a sense of cleanlyness either,
>> though.
>
> True enough, gcc 5 finally fixed the bogus warning though.
Can't believe it took that long to fix a simple thing like this.
Anyway, it may be good to note this, so that 2 years from now when the
LTS guys roll out GCC 5,
we can make this change.
Is there a standard way of noting down such "deferrals", or is it up
to me to keep track of this?
Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
