From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix some sparse warnings Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:47:32 +0200 Message-ID: <51E62FF4.60809@viscovery.net> References: <51E431F1.6050002@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> <51E4E0C0.3060604@viscovery.net> <20130716062122.GA4964@sigill.intra.peff.net> <6BDA2E3E7318418BBB2C19B475B2B118@PhilipOakley> <51E5B8BD.8090202@googlemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Philip Oakley , Jeff King , Ramsay Jones , Junio C Hamano , GIT Mailing-list To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 17 07:47:44 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UzKaV-0001Rq-Rp for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:47:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751897Ab3GQFrk (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 01:47:40 -0400 Received: from so.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:46470 "EHLO so.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751520Ab3GQFrj (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 01:47:39 -0400 Received: from [81.10.228.254] (helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by so.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UzKaL-0006YA-UR; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:47:34 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.95] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763AE1660F; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:47:33 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 In-Reply-To: <51E5B8BD.8090202@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: >>>> I question the value of this warning. Initialization with '= >>>> {0}' is a well-established idiom, and sparse should know about >>>> it. Thanks everyone for your feedback. But I really wanted to call only the warning in the case of the '= {0}' idiom into question, not about 0 vs. NULL in general. -- Hannes