[cfe-commits] [PATCH] [libcxx] cleanup a few compile warnings emitted by GCC

[Chandler Carruth]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de
> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:49:06PM -0500, Howard Hinnant wrote:
> > > @@ -4583,7 +4584,7 @@
> > >  string
> > >  __time_get_storage<char>::__analyze(char fmt, const ctype<char>& ct)
> > >  {
> > > -    tm t = {0};
> > > +    tm t = {0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
> > >      t.tm_sec = 59;
> > >      t.tm_min = 55;
> > >      t.tm_hour = 23;
> > > @@ -4729,7 +4730,7 @@
> > >  wstring
> > >  __time_get_storage<wchar_t>::__analyze(char fmt, const
> ctype<wchar_t>& ct)
> > >  {
> > > -    tm t = {0};
> > > +    tm t = {0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
> > >      t.tm_sec = 59;
> > >      t.tm_min = 55;
> > >      t.tm_hour = 23;
> >
> > Rejected.  tm contains *at least* 9 int data members.  The portable and
> > concise way to zero initialize this struct is with the single {0}.
>
> What about using memset as alternative?


Why? The compiler warning from GCC is simply wrong. The other members are
in fact initialized. I see no reason to use a more verbose construct which
requires a declaration of an external function merely to avoid a patently
incorrect warning.

Also, as Richard Smith pointed out when this was discussed on IRC, memset
is incorrect for some C++ constructs (pointers-to-members).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20121227/9852312e/attachment.html>