Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning

[Jim Meyering]

Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/29/2011 05:18 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>> I think the case for clearing the bits is a little
>>>> stronger than the one for leaving them uninitialized, and would
>>>> be even more in favor, it if only this initialization were portable:
>>>>
>>>>   struct sigaction action = {0,};
>
> What would make it non-portable?  And should we raise a defect against
> POSIX that requests that all types that allow extension fields should be
> initializable via {0,} as a way to guarantee values in all extension fields?

"portable" wasn't the right word.
I mean "usable in the face of gcc's warning options".