On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 09:47:34AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > 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)
Hmm, I just noticed Clang isn't diagnosing for file-scoped definitions. I've opened: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/232483 Do we want to wait on this attribute until Clang has full coverage for all initializer cases, or land the attribute so we can continue to add coverage for function-level coverage? I'm worried about a compiler bump (once the bug is fixed) suddenly exposing a bunch of missed initializers, but then again we also have no users yet... -Kees -- Kees Cook
