at 8:25 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
I don't have any strong feeling against disabling compiler warnings,
but maybe the right thing to do here is to initialize the gaps to the
invalid value instead of pre-initializing the whole thing first and
then setting up the valid values on the 2nd pass.
I d
Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 18:44 -0700, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> > While fixing the W=1 builds, this warning came up because the
> > developers used a very tricky way to get structures initialized
> > to a non-zero value, but this causes GCC to warn about an
> > override. In
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 18:44 -0700, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> While fixing the W=1 builds, this warning came up because the
> developers used a very tricky way to get structures initialized
> to a non-zero value, but this causes GCC to warn about an
> override. In this case the override was intentio
While fixing the W=1 builds, this warning came up because the
developers used a very tricky way to get structures initialized
to a non-zero value, but this causes GCC to warn about an
override. In this case the override was intentional, so just
disable the warning for this code with a macro that re
