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 <aaro.koski...@iki.fi> 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
s/C11/C99/
>
> (rwlock_t) { .raw_lock = { 0 }, }
>
> as compound literal (which is not constant) rather than constant
> initalizer plus a cast.
In some places we can just drop the cast, but it doesn't work everywhere.
I don't see a way to get pre-c99 semantics here.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
