On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 12:41:18AM +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 10:55:16PM +0000, John Keeping wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:09:01PM +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > > > Explicitly set the suffix field of the terminating format entry to 0. > > > This fixes a GCC warning seen with "-Wmissing-field-initializers". > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Fleischer <c...@cryptocrack.de> > > > --- > > > ui-snapshot.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/ui-snapshot.c b/ui-snapshot.c > > > index 47432bd..e740645 100644 > > > --- a/ui-snapshot.c > > > +++ b/ui-snapshot.c > > > @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ const struct cgit_snapshot_format > > > cgit_snapshot_formats[] = { > > > { ".tar.bz2", "application/x-bzip2", write_tar_bzip2_archive, 0x04 }, > > > { ".tar", "application/x-tar", write_tar_archive, 0x08 }, > > > { ".tar.xz", "application/x-xz", write_tar_xz_archive, 0x10 }, > > > - {} > > > + { 0 } > > > > I'm mildly against this - we're not fixing an issue that's been found with > > some > > specific compiler, the meaning of both versions is the same and > > -Wmissing-field-initializers isn't in -Wall. It feels like a warning that > > was > > added for people following some overly prescriptive coding standard, not a > > warning that's actually useful. > > Looking at the C89/C99 standards (section 6.7.8), it doesn't look like > using "{}" as initializer is valid at all. In the C++ standard, a > special grammar rule was added to allow for using "{}" as initializer > (see section 8.5). I guess we're rather fixing a "real" bug (nothing of > practical importance, but definitely not a compiler-related issue) here. > Maybe the commit message should be updated to reflect this.
Interesting. A careful reading agrees with this, although I haven't come across a compiler that would treat these differently and it's slightly strange that you can't keep reducing the "unspecified members take a default value" case until the list is empty. > > > > [Also, I'm surprised this is sufficient to squelch the warning given the > > description of -Wmissing-field-initializers in gcc(1): > > > > Warn if a structure's initializer has some fields missing. For example, > > the following code would cause such a warning, because "x.h" is > > implicitly > > zero: > > > > struct s { int f, g, h; }; > > struct s x = { 3, 4 }; > > ] > > Yes, it's a bit weird. My guess is that if you're doing something like > "struct s x = { 3, 4 };" in the example above, you most likely forgot to > set the last field, whereas if you're doing something like "struct s x = > { 0 };" you're explicitly (and deliberately) initializing everything to > zeros. The compiler is kind of guessing whether the missing members are > skipped on purpose or not. > > > > > > }; > > > > > > static const struct cgit_snapshot_format *get_format(const char > > > *filename) > > > -- > > > 1.8.2.rc0.247.g811e0c0 _______________________________________________ cgit mailing list cgit@hjemli.net http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit