aeubanks added a comment. In D157879#4606531 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879#4606531>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D157879#4604288 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879#4604288>, @phosek wrote: > >> Note that there's an ongoing discussion on the GCC bug >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868 whether >> `-Wmissing-field-initializers` should apply to both C and C++ or just C. > > Thank you for posting this! I'm with @jwakely on this: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868#c3 -- the warning is for > people who want to be told they've not explicitly specified all of the > initializers, it is not for telling you "this hasn't been initialized". I > think the desire makes as much sense in C++ as it does in C, but this is more > of a style warning than a correctness warning. > > In D157879#4604471 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879#4604471>, @ianloic wrote: > >> In D157879#4604233 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879#4604233>, @aeubanks >> wrote: >> >>> ah I thought this was in `-Wall` but it's not >>> >>> the struct is >>> >>> struct Foo { >>> const void* buffer; >>> uint32_t capacity; >>> uint32_t reserved; >>> }; >>> >>> where `reserved` isn't explicitly initialized. that seems like reasonable >>> code, but I suppose we can just explicitly initialize `reserved` here >> >> FWIW, if this is the specific piece of code that led me to this >> conversation, that declaration is in a header which at least in theory is >> supposed to remain compatible with C. It's inside `extern "C" { ... }` even. >> We can't add explicit initialize `reserved` and keep the definition C >> comaptible. > > Ouch, yeah, that does make it a challenge. But why is > `-Wmissing-field-initializers` enabled in the first place for the code? It > seems like there are fields you *don't* want explicit initialization for, so > perhaps the answer is to disable the diagnostic for those types? It's an unfortunate configuration. We saw this in Chrome where some projects were manually setting `-Wmissing-field-initializers`, but when building for Fuchsia, some Fuchsia system headers had this code. We can just suppress this for all Fuchsia builds, I think that's fine. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
