[PATCH] Fixing warnings revealed by gcc release build

[David Blaikie]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ================
> 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"
> +};
> +
>
> ----------------
> 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.

Yeah, I'm going to go with "bad warning".

>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/AST/Decl.cpp:668
> @@ -667,2 +667,3 @@
>    }
> +  (void)D;
>    assert(!D || D->CachedLinkage == CachedLinkage);
> ----------------
> This one LGTM.

Agreed - feel free to commit this part.