linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140926195803.GB19952@cloud>
Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:58:03 -0700
From:	josh@...htriplett.org
To:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"sparse@...isli.org" <sparse@...isli.org>,
	"linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:37:19PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> Most of the others come from null-entry table initializations, i.e. {
> 0 }, which give missing field initializer warnings.

I'd suggest that such initializers should just be {}, not { 0 }, and we
should teach compilers to specifically *not* complain about empty
initializers even when otherwise complaining about missing fields.
Initializing a structure to 0 is completely sensible.

- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/