[PATCH] Fixing warnings revealed by gcc release build

[Edwin Vane]

================
Comment at: lib/Basic/LangOptions.cpp:17-21
@@ -16,3 +16,7 @@
 
-const SanitizerOptions SanitizerOptions::Disabled = {};
+const SanitizerOptions SanitizerOptions::Disabled = {
+#define SANITIZER(NAME, ID) 0,
+#include "clang/Basic/Sanitizers.def"
+};
+
 
----------------
Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
> Edwin Vane wrote:
> > Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
> > > David Blaikie wrote:
> > > > Not sure of the motivation for this change - shouldn't the {} in the original code produce the same effect (zero initializing all the elements)?
> > > I have mixed feelings about this.  -Wmissing-field-initializers is a different thing: all members are initialized by {}, but gcc complains that initializers are not explicitly spelled in the source.
> > Is it a problem to explicitly do the initialization to make gcc happy if it has the same result as {}? I wasn't aware empty braces was defined to cause all fields to be initialized to 0.
> It just adds noise to satisfy the warning.  In this particular case it is not actually that bad, since SanitizerOptions is generated by the same .def file, so it will not go out of sync.
> 
Would you prefer using default constructor instead? At least I was able to find defined behaviour for this situation:

const SanitizerOptions SanitizerOptions::Disabled = SanitizerOptions();


http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D342