On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 16:23, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:03:31PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > From: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> > > > > There are many warnings in this file when we re-enable the > > Woverride-init flag: > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:704:26: warning: initialized field overwritten > > [-Woverride-init] > > 704 | [ESR_ELx_EC_UNKNOWN] = "Unknown/Uncategorized", > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:704:26: note: (near initialization for > > 'esr_class_str[0]') > > arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:705:22: warning: initialized field overwritten > > [-Woverride-init] > > 705 | [ESR_ELx_EC_WFx] = "WFI/WFE", > > | ^~~~~~~~~ > > > > This is harmless since they are only informational strings, > > but it's easy to change the code to ignore missing initialization > > and instead warn about possible duplicate initializers. > > This has come up before, and IMO the warning is more hindrance than > helpful, given the prevalance of spurious warnings, and the (again IMO) > the rework needed to avoid those making the code harder to reason about
FWIW in QEMU we turn the clang version of this off with -Wno-initializer-overrides because we agree that the code is fine and the compiler is being unhelpful in this case. (There's a reason gcc doesn't put it in -Wall.) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91688 is a request for something that would catch bugs without breaking ranged-array initializer syntax usage, but the gcc devs don't seem to have responded. thanks -- PMM
