On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:55:53AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 02:52:31PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 03:59:22PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:

quoted

quoted

+# prefer = {}; to = {0};
+		if ($line =~ /= \{ *0 *\}/) {
+			WARN("ZERO_INITIALIZER",
+			     "= {} is preferred over = {0}\n" . $herecurr);

Sigh...  "is preferred over" by whom?  Use the active voice, would you?

quoted

[1] and [2] state that {} and {0} don't have the same effect. So if correct,
this is not only a matter of style.

When testing with gcc 10.3.0, I arrived at the conclusion that both {} and
{0} HAVE the same behavior (i.e the whole structure and included structures
are completely zeroed) and I don't have a C standard to check what the rules
are.
gcc online doc didn't help me either.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf, but empty
initializer-list is gccism anyway.

Section 6.7.8 is the one to look through there.

That's out of date.  It changed in C11.  Both = { 0 } and = { } will
clear out struct holes. The = { } GCC extension has always initialized
struct holes.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf

For partial initializations then all the padding is zeroed.
Unfortunately if you fully initialize the struct then padding is not
initialized.

If we're going to discuss which C standard applies to the kernel,
then...

As Kbuild passes -std=gnu89, the kernel expects C89 behaviour with
GNU extensions from the compiler, both C99 and C11 are not that
relevant, although the GNU extensions include some bits from these
standards.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!