On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:19:31PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:49:15PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> > Fix missing braces compilation warning in the ARM
> > compiler environment:
> > fs/btrfs/backref.c: In function ‘is_shared_data_backref’:
> > fs/btrfs/backref.c:394:9: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
> > struct prelim_ref target = {0};
> > fs/btrfs/backref.c:394:9: warning: (near initialization for ‘target.rbnode’) [-Wmissing-braces]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang <zhangshengju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/backref.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> > index 9c380e7..0cc0257 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> > @@ -391,7 +391,7 @@ static int is_shared_data_backref(struct preftrees *preftrees, u64 bytenr)
> > struct rb_node **p = &preftrees->direct.root.rb_root.rb_node;
> > struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
> > struct prelim_ref *ref = NULL;
> > - struct prelim_ref target = {0};
> > + struct prelim_ref target = {};
>
> I wonder why this initialization is a problem while there are about 20
> other uses of "{0}". The warning is about the embedded rbnode, but why
> does a more recent compiler not warn about that? Is this a missing fix
> from the one you use?
>
> I don't mind fixing compiler warnings as long as it bothers enough
> people, eg. we have fixes reported by gcc 7 but I'm hesitant to fix
> anything older without a good reason.
This seems to be the bug report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
"Bug 53119 - -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero
initializer {0} "
