Hi Chih-Wei,
On 6 June 2017 at 06:16, Chih-Wei Huang wrote:
> Making the code warning-free is the responsibility
> of the one who wrote the code instead of
> the one who builds the code.
>
if you look closer you'll see that particular warning will be
triggered at almost any point.
That is using
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Chih-Wei Huang wrote:
> 2017-06-05 3:57 GMT+08:00 Marek Olšák :
>> NAK.
>>
>> In C/C++, the initializer is used to clear the memory to 0s, thus,
>> adding 0s to the initializer is redundant and unnecessary. Empty
>> initializer {} is also commonly used instead of me
2017-06-05 3:57 GMT+08:00 Marek Olšák :
> NAK.
>
> In C/C++, the initializer is used to clear the memory to 0s, thus,
> adding 0s to the initializer is redundant and unnecessary. Empty
> initializer {} is also commonly used instead of memset.
Commonly used doesn't mean it's the right thing.
Otherw
On 4 June 2017 at 21:27, Benedikt Schemmer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> my reasoning wasn't based on how c handles partial initializations,
> but on how the generated files look like: like something is missing.
>
> Also I don't want to suppress these warnings, because I don't have
> the experience you hav
Hi all,
my reasoning wasn't based on how c handles partial initializations,
but on how the generated files look like: like something is missing.
Also I don't want to suppress these warnings, because I don't have
the experience you have with the codebase and would kind of like to
see if my changes
Hi Marek,
Do you have any other reasons besides it not improving correctness?
I'd like to pick at least the radv one, as the code doesn't get less
clear, and using 5 zeros for struct with 6 members is just plain
silly.
- Bas
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> NAK.
>
> In C/C+
NAK.
In C/C++, the initializer is used to clear the memory to 0s, thus,
adding 0s to the initializer is redundant and unnecessary. Empty
initializer {} is also commonly used instead of memset.
You need to suppress this warning if you don't want to see it.
Marek
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:45 AM, B
I send these patches as a series because they share the same problem:
all have missing fields in the default initialization path for field/register
definitions.
This causes several hundreds (thousands?) of "missing initializer" warnings
from the compiler making it hard to spot less frequent error
