On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 09:38:20 +
> Bruce Richardson wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > Does this flag give us additional guarantees of padding being
> > zero-initialized that were there before? From my reading of the gcc doc[1],
> > "
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 09:38:20 +
Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >
>
> Does this flag give us additional guarantees of padding being
> zero-initialized that were there before? From my reading of the gcc doc[1],
> "..padding-bits=union" corresponds to the old behaviour, right?
>
> This also means
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 08:48:45AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2025 18.21
> >
> > With GCC 15, the compiler has changed the default behavior when
> > initialization is used for aggregate variables. The n
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2025 18.21
>
> With GCC 15, the compiler has changed the default behavior when
> initialization is used for aggregate variables. The new default
> is to follow the standard (C23) and not initialize everythin
With GCC 15, the compiler has changed the default behavior when
initialization is used for aggregate variables. The new default
is to follow the standard (C23) and not initialize everything by
default. This breaks assumptions in some drivers and can be
lead to other bugs.
Use the new zero initiali
5 matches
Mail list logo