12:05 p.m.
Build with gcc 4.8 fails with:
bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c: In function 'bhyveMonitorIO':
bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c:51:18: error: missing initializer for field 'tv_sec' of
'const struct timespec' [-Werror=missing-field-initializers]
const struct timespec zerowait = {};
Explicitly initialize zerowait to fix the build.
---
src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c b/src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c
index 7f19c6e..1316720 100644
--- a/src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c
+++ b/src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ struct _bhyveMonitor {
static void
bhyveMonitorIO(int watch, int kq, int events ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, void *opaque)
{
- const struct timespec zerowait = {};
+ const struct timespec zerowait = { 0, 0 };
bhyveMonitorPtr mon = opaque;
struct kevent kev;
int rc, status;
--
2.3.7
3:45 p.m.
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 08:05:23PM +0300, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
Build with gcc 4.8 fails with:
bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c: In function 'bhyveMonitorIO':
bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c:51:18: error: missing initializer for field 'tv_sec' of
'const struct timespec' [-Werror=missing-field-initializers]
const struct timespec zerowait = {};
Explicitly initialize zerowait to fix the build.
---
src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c b/src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c
index 7f19c6e..1316720 100644
--- a/src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c
+++ b/src/bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ struct _bhyveMonitor {
static void
bhyveMonitorIO(int watch, int kq, int events ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, void *opaque)
{
- const struct timespec zerowait = {};
+ const struct timespec zerowait = { 0, 0 };
You "need" to set at least minimum one field, all others will be set
to 0. But this is of course very right thing to do.
ACK, structures shouldn't be initialized this way.
bhyveMonitorPtr mon = opaque;
struct kevent kev;
int rc, status;
--
2.3.7
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
5:04 p.m.
On 05/23/2015 02:45 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 08:05:23PM +0300, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> Build with gcc 4.8 fails with:
Arguably a bug in gcc; but since we can work around it without too much
pain, we should.
>
> bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c: In function 'bhyveMonitorIO':
> bhyveMonitorIO(int watch, int kq, int events ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
void
> *opaque)
> {
> - const struct timespec zerowait = {};
> + const struct timespec zerowait = { 0, 0 };
Would also be sufficient to do 'zerowait = { 0 };' - any C compiler that
warns about an initializer of { 0 } is broken, because that is THE
idiomatic way to zero-initialize anything (scalar or structure)
according to C99.
You "need" to set at least minimum one field, all others will be set
to 0. But this is of course very right thing to do.
ACK, structures shouldn't be initialized this way.
Go ahead and push as you have it, though, with two members, since we
know struct timespec has (at least) two members.
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
2:18 a.m.
Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/23/2015 02:45 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 08:05:23PM +0300, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>> Build with gcc 4.8 fails with:
Arguably a bug in gcc; but since we can work around it without too much
pain, we should.
>>
>> bhyve/bhyve_monitor.c: In function 'bhyveMonitorIO':
>> bhyveMonitorIO(int watch, int kq, int events ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, void
>> *opaque)
>> {
>> - const struct timespec zerowait = {};
>> + const struct timespec zerowait = { 0, 0 };
Would also be sufficient to do 'zerowait = { 0 };' - any C compiler that
warns about an initializer of { 0 } is broken, because that is THE
idiomatic way to zero-initialize anything (scalar or structure)
according to C99.
>
> You "need" to set at least minimum one field, all others will be set
> to 0. But this is of course very right thing to do.
>
> ACK, structures shouldn't be initialized this way.
Go ahead and push as you have it, though, with two members, since we
know struct timespec has (at least) two members.
Pushed, thanks!
Roman Bogorodskiy
3506
days inactive
3507
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Eric Blake -
Martin Kletzander -
Roman Bogorodskiy