From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 207959] Don't warn about the universal zero initializer for a
 structure with the 'designated_init' attribute.
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 22:26:01 +0000
Message-ID: <bug-207959-200559-Of344ruqqL@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
References: <bug-207959-200559@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Return-path: <linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:32780 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S2437074AbgE1W0G (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 28 May 2020 18:26:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: <bug-207959-200559@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
To: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207959

--- Comment #4 from Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) ---
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:24 PM <bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Well, that's really the point.
> The problem Sparse also gives the warnings corresponding to clang's -Wnonnull
> and my understanding is that these warnings are desired for the kernel even
> when coming from using '{ 0 }'.

In the kernel, the empty initializer is be the usual way to create a
zero initializer. So yes, { 0 } may exist, but it generally should be
used for initializing something that is known to be an integer. And if
it's a pointer, it should warn, because '0' should never have been a
valid pointer, traditional C or not.

It's not like we use pedantic and portable standard C to begin with.

So yeah, the sparse defaults may be a bit kernel-centric.

             Linus

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.