Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix sparse warnings

Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] writes:

Am 3/21/2011 10:45, schrieb Stephen Boyd:

quoted

diff --git a/daemon.c b/daemon.c
index 347fd0c..4c8346d 100644
--- a/daemon.c
+++ b/daemon.c

@@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ static void check_dead_children(void)
 static char **cld_argv;
 static void handle(int incoming, struct sockaddr *addr, socklen_t addrlen)
 {
-	struct child_process cld = { 0 };
+	struct child_process cld = { NULL };

IMO this change is not good.

The purpose of { 0} is not to initialize (only) the first member, but
rather to serve as a visual marker that says "We want the complete struct
zero-initialized".

Huh?  News to me.

The first element of type const char ** is initialized to a NULL pointer
and the rest if filled with NUL bytes either way.