On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:19:44 -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:

> > On Jan 25, 2021, at 6:22 AM, Kamil Rytarowski <ka...@netbsd.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I have no problem with this change but I am curious why should we use "{
> > }"? It's a C GNU extension and C++ syntax.
> Using { 0 } makes an assumption about the first member of the
> structure which is not guaranteed to remain true.

The commit message says:

| Since we're using designated initialisers for compat data, we should
| use a completely empty initializer for the sentinel. 

but that "should" is not true.  The code that checks that sentinel
uses some particular member to access it, so, pedantically speaking,
the initialization must designate that member in the sentinel
initialization.  Yes, this is verbose and doesn't look as pretty, but
that is what "should" happen here.  Using non-standard {} extension
makes it look nicer, but is not a "should" kind of necessity.


Reply via email to