On 20/10/2017 17:32, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 10/20/17 17:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 20/10/2017 17:08, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> My remark below might matter even less, but:
>>>
>>> I'd find it regrettable if we suppressed a wrong gcc warning about a
>>> valid C construct by replacing the construct with a GNU-ism that is
>>> *not* standard C. :/
>>
>> Is {} to initialize structs a GNUism?
>
> It is;
>
>> struct {
>> int a, b;
>> } x = {};
>
> $ gcc -fsyntax-only -std=c99 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra x.c
>
>> x.c:3:7: warning: ISO C forbids empty initializer braces [-Wpedantic]
>> } x = {};
>> ^
>> x.c:3:1: warning: missing initializer for field 'a' of 'struct <anonymous>'
>> [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
>> } x = {};
>> ^
>> x.c:2:7: note: 'a' declared here
>> int a, b;
>> ^
>
> If you replace "{}" with "{ 0 }", the same command line stays quiet.
>
> (I used: gcc (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-16).)
Oh. So there _was_ some logic to my original configure patch.
Currently we have 82 occurrences of empty initializers and 92
occurrences of {0}, so I think it makes sense to go ahead with it.
On the other hand, without a more precise option than -Wpedantic, empty
initializers are going to creep in again.
Paolo
