Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix sparse warnings
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 21, 2011, 16:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vsjugsb9n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <4D872420.8080501@viscovery.net>
Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:
Show 17 quoted lines
> Am 3/21/2011 10:45, schrieb Stephen Boyd:
>> diff --git a/daemon.c b/daemon.c
>> index 347fd0c..4c8346d 100644
>> --- a/daemon.c
>> +++ b/daemon.c
>> @@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ static void check_dead_children(void)
>> static char **cld_argv;
>> static void handle(int incoming, struct sockaddr *addr, socklen_t addrlen)
>> {
>> - struct child_process cld = { 0 };
>> + struct child_process cld = { NULL };
>
> IMO this change is not good.
>
> The purpose of { 0} is not to initialize (only) the first member, but
> rather to serve as a visual marker that says "We want the complete struct
> zero-initialized".Huh? News to me.
The first element of type const char ** is initialized to a NULL pointer and the rest if filled with NUL bytes either way.