On 21 January 2016 at 16:58, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 21 January 2016 at 12:08, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at >>> gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 18 January 2016 at 22:53, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Try explaining that to people who have a compulsion to fix them or >>>>> argue about them. :) Ignore? REALLY? IGNORE??? >>>>> >>>> Now that we have a few people off your back can you please point out >>>> where this triggers warnings ? >>> >>> This particular warning is trigged by {} >> As mentioned previously neither {} nor {0} trigger any warning here. >> Jani hinted that you might be using an old (buggy?) compiler which >> generates them. >> Which version of GCC are you using ? Do you mind showing the first few >> warnings ? >> >>> or any { ... } which doesn't >>> initialize all members. >>> >> Do we have any outside of intel_decode.c ? I'm failing to spot any. > > amdgpu_bo.c has 7 occurences of "= {}" and they all print the warning. With 200+ cases of memset and 40+ of "= *{ *0 *}". Any objections if I send a patch to transition to either one of these two ?
> There are more in libdrm. I have gcc 4.9.2. If I revert this patch, I > get this nice log: > Interesting... I could swear I've tried the patch with gcc 4.9.x (currenly using 5.x). Hmm at the same time gcc does not seem to list any -Wunused-result warnings here. Thanks Emil