On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 02:10:31AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:05:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Here's one example how it fails: > > > http://marc.info/?l=gcc&m=141349914632010&w=2 > > > > Ok, that just looks like a gnu11 bug, then. Not being able to > > initialize structures because some sub-structure has a volatile member > > is just pure BS. > > > > Has anybody reported this as a gcc bug? That email may be on the gcc > > list, but I'm not seeing anybody acknowledge it as a bug.. > > > > I cannot imagine that anybody sane claims that this is *wanted* > > behavior from "gnu11". > > IIUC, it's nothing to do with volatile. C11 and above reads > > (rwlock_t) { .raw_lock = { 0 }, } > > as compound literal (which is not constant) rather than constant > initalizer plus a cast.
Ah... They hadn't even pulled it into gnu99; IIRC, they even tried to remove it in gnu89, but Linus' complaints had stopped that attempt. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
