On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 9:11 AM Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> __must_init might be smaller?
That sounds fine too. I like that it says that something *has* to be
done (like the original name did). Hmm... On the other hand, I guess
"must" could sound like one has to initialize the field "somehow",
i.e. writing:
struct S s = {};
definitely initializes it, yet the compiler would warn. Would
"explicit" hint a bit more at the fact that one has to actually
"write" the field, even if it may have been initialized anyway?
(Of course, if one knows that the attribute only applies to fields,
then it doesn't make much of a difference)
Cheers,
Miguel
