Hi David:
On 2020/4/14 23:22, David Sterba wrote:
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} "
Thank you for your reply. My tool chain is
"arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc(Linaro GCC 4.9-2017.01) 4.9.4".
I was trying to do an experiment on the hardware so I compiled it and
there was a warning. Maybe as Qu Wenruo said possible tools are old?
Thank you for your patience,
Tang Bin
