[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] mkimage: fix build regression in grub_mkimage_load_image

From: Peter Jones
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mkimage: fix build regression in grub_mkimage_load_image
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 17:22:00 -0500
User-agent: NeoMutt/20171215

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:38:58PM -0800, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> The grub_mkimage_load_image function (commit 7542af6, mkimage: refactor a 
> bunch
> of section data into a struct.) introduces a build regression on SPARC:
>   cc1: warnings being treated as errors
>   In file included from util/grub-mkimage32.c:23:
>   util/grub-mkimagexx.c: In function 'grub_mkimage_load_image32':
>   util/grub-mkimagexx.c:1968: error: missing initializer
>   util/grub-mkimagexx.c:1968: error: (near initialization for 'smd.sections')
>   make[2]: *** [util/grub_mkimage-grub-mkimage32.o] Error 1
> Initialize the entire section_metadata structure.

I'm not against this fix.

That said, looking at the longer term: how do we have this problem
still?  Or: can we please add one of -std={gnu99,gnu11}[0] by default
instead of continuing to "fix" things this way?  The C standard has had
this to say about initializer-lists for 19 years now, and even longer in

19 The initialization shall occur in initializer list order, each
   initializer provided for a particular subobject overriding any
   previously listed initializer for the same subobject; all subobjects
   that are not initialized explicitly shall be initialized implicitly
   the same as objects that have static storage duration.

The compiler most of us use added this functionality when most of us
were in grade school, and the compiler the rest of us use wasn't written
yet when this part of the C standard was.  I strongly suspect every
compiler we care about works just fine with that if we just ask it to.

Can we eliminate having this issue instead of continuing to have to
"fix" the *better* form of this code piecemeal every time someone
forgets we're hobbled in this particular way?

[0] The current "master" branch seems to work just fine with -std=gnu99
    or -std=gnu11, but it breaks with -std=c99 or -std=c11 due to some
    silly bits of how time.h works.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]