[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct expli
From: |
malc |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct explicitly |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:04:00 +0400 (MSD) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 08/30/10 17:43, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 08/30/2010 10:35 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> >> From: Jes Sorensen<address@hidden>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen<address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >> linux-aio.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> The specific case above is really inconsistent. Either do {} or {0, 0},
> doing just {0} means it is initializing just one element in the struct.
> That is broken IMHO.
>
No it doesn't mean that. In this particular case all the fields of ts
will be set to zero, for specific wording look at 6.7.9#21
--
mailto:address@hidden
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 11/14] Remove unused function arguments, (continued)
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/14] Respect return value from nbd_client(), Jes . Sorensen, 2010/08/30
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 13/14] Change DPRINTF() to do{}while(0) to avoid compiler warning, Jes . Sorensen, 2010/08/30
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 14/14] load_multiboot(): get_image_size() returns int, Jes . Sorensen, 2010/08/30
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/14] Remove unused argument for get_whole_cluster(), Jes . Sorensen, 2010/08/30
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/14] Fix repeated typo: was "end if list" instead of "end of list", Jes . Sorensen, 2010/08/30
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct explicitly, Jes . Sorensen, 2010/08/30
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct explicitly, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct explicitly, malc, 2010/08/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct explicitly, Jes Sorensen, 2010/08/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct explicitly, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct explicitly, malc, 2010/08/30
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 12/14] size_t is unsigned, so (foo >= 0) is always true, Jes . Sorensen, 2010/08/30
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/14] gcc extra warning fixes, Blue Swirl, 2010/08/30