From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] test: fix build with GCC 4.8.5 Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 21:55:01 -0700 Message-ID: <20180504215501.3dd511a8@xeon-e3> References: <1525469883-8342-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, dev@dpdk.org To: Erik Gabriel Carrillo Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com (mail-pf0-f196.google.com [209.85.192.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B98B62 for ; Sat, 5 May 2018 06:55:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf0-f196.google.com with SMTP id q22so18925733pff.11 for ; Fri, 04 May 2018 21:55:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1525469883-8342-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, 4 May 2018 16:38:03 -0500 Erik Gabriel Carrillo wrote: > Build errors occur on CentOS 7 with GCC 4.8.5 20150623 in the > event_timer_adapter_test autotest; the > -Werror=3Dmissing-field-initializers option causes the compiler to emit > messages like "error: missing initializer for field =E2=80=98priority=E2= =80=99 of > =E2=80=98struct =E2=80=99" in several places. >=20 > Add -Wno-missing-field-initializers to the test's CFLAGS to allow the > current syntax if we are using GCC 5.0 or lower. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo > --- > test/test/Makefile | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >=20 > diff --git a/test/test/Makefile b/test/test/Makefile > index 2630ab4..2011857 100644 > --- a/test/test/Makefile > +++ b/test/test/Makefile > @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ CFLAGS_test_memcpy_perf.o +=3D -fno-var-tracking-assi= gnments > # designated initializers. > ifeq ($(shell test $(GCC_VERSION) -le 50 && echo 1), 1) > CFLAGS_test_eventdev_sw.o +=3D -Wno-missing-field-initializers > +CFLAGS_test_event_timer_adapter.o +=3D -Wno-missing-field-initializers > endif > endif > endif Why not fix the code rather than supressing the warning??