[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning |
Date: |
Sat, 30 Apr 2011 07:53:45 +0200 |
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/29/2011 05:18 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>> I think the case for clearing the bits is a little
>>>> stronger than the one for leaving them uninitialized, and would
>>>> be even more in favor, it if only this initialization were portable:
>>>>
>>>> struct sigaction action = {0,};
>
> What would make it non-portable? And should we raise a defect against
> POSIX that requests that all types that allow extension fields should be
> initializable via {0,} as a way to guarantee values in all extension fields?
"portable" wasn't the right word.
I mean "usable in the face of gcc's warning options".
- [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Eric Blake, 2011/04/29
- Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Jim Meyering, 2011/04/29
- Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Pádraig Brady, 2011/04/29
- Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Pádraig Brady, 2011/04/30
- Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Eric Blake, 2011/04/29
- Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Pádraig Brady, 2011/04/30
- Re: manywarnings.m4 indentation, Bruno Haible, 2011/04/30
- Re: manywarnings.m4 indentation, Pádraig Brady, 2011/04/30
- Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Bruno Haible, 2011/04/30
Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Eric Blake, 2011/04/29
Re: [PATCH] fatal-signal: silence coverity warning, Bruno Haible, 2011/04/29