On 08/30/10 18:56, malc wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> On 08/30/2010 10:35 AM, jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
>>> From: Jes Sorensen<jes.soren...@redhat.com>
>>> diff --git a/linux-aio.c b/linux-aio.c
>>> index 68f4b3d..3240996 100644
>>> --- a/linux-aio.c
>>> +++ b/linux-aio.c
>>> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void qemu_laio_completion_cb(void *opaque)
>>> struct io_event events[MAX_EVENTS];
>>> uint64_t val;
>>> ssize_t ret;
>>> - struct timespec ts = { 0 };
>>> + struct timespec ts = { 0, 0 };
>>>
>>
>> I don't like these. What's wrong with { } or { 0 }? Implicit zeroing of
>> members is a critical feature of structure initialization so if there is
>> something wrong with this, it's important to know why because otherwise we've
>> got a massive amount of broken code.
>>
>
> Apart from gcc complaining about fields not being initialized explicitly
> there's nothing wrong with it.
Sure it compiles, it works, but it's not pretty. What does it mean if
you write = { 1 } in the above case?
Anyway the whole point of my patch is this, if we fix things like these,
we are much more likely to be able to catch real bugs using some of
gcc's checking. The patch I submitted is harmless code wise, but it
makes it that bit easier to catch other bugs in the code. In my book
that adds a lot of value.
Jes
