On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 09:38:20 +
> Bruce Richardson wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > Does this flag give us additional guarantees of padding being
> > zero-initialized that were there before? From my reading of the gcc doc[1],
> > "
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 09:38:20 +
Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >
>
> Does this flag give us additional guarantees of padding being
> zero-initialized that were there before? From my reading of the gcc doc[1],
> "..padding-bits=union" corresponds to the old behaviour, right?
>
> This also means
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 08:48:45AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2025 18.21
> >
> > With GCC 15, the compiler has changed the default behavior when
> > initialization is used for aggregate variables. The n
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2025 18.21
>
> With GCC 15, the compiler has changed the default behavior when
> initialization is used for aggregate variables. The new default
> is to follow the standard (C23) and not initialize everythin
4 matches
Mail list logo