syntax error in source3/locking/brlock.c
Thomas Schulz
schulz at adi.com
Tue Mar 10 12:15:20 MDT 2015
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:09:54AM -0400, Thomas Schulz wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:12:48PM -0400, Thomas Schulz wrote:
> > > > It looks like we are only going the fix the one file with the fatal error,
> > > > but I just tried the smaller patch. It applied cleanly and the result
> > > > builds correctly. I do wonder about lines such as:
> > > >
> > > > + struct torture_lease_break break_info_tmp = { { { { { 0 } } } } };
> > > >
> > > > I am affraid that we are in danger of using up the world's supply of
> > > > braces. :-)
> > >
> > > Is Solaris happy with just {0}?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Volker
> >
> > I just tried it and just { 0 } makes the Solaris compiler happy.
> > I am not a good enough C programmer to understand why more than one set
> > of braces might be needed, I just thought that those lines looked odd.
> >
> > I also just noticed that the small patch misses one instance in
> > source4/torture/smb2/util.c. The large patch had both of them.
>
> Based on the comments in this thread, i think we should just change the
> instances that cause problems with the Solaris compiler. Can you confirm
> that these are the required changes?
>
> source4/torture/smb2/util.c
>
> - union smb_fileinfo q = {};
> + union smb_fileinfo q = { 0 };
>
> source3/locking/brlock.c
>
> - *br_lck = (struct byte_range_lock) {};
> + *br_lck = (struct byte_range_lock) { 0 };
>
> Converting everything else to { 0 } should probably be deferred until
> gcc handles this without additional warnings.
>
> Christof
Just the patch to source3/locking/brlock.c is required as that one is the
only fatal error.
Tom Schulz
Applied Dynamics Intl.
schulz at adi.com
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list