[PATCH] Fixes for a small number of compiler warnings

[Alan Modra]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 08:32:35PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 07:53:36PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> This becomes a regression with the older GCC.
> >
> > Yes.  I'd rather cause that than have warnings with more recent gcc
> > versions..  I also agree that we shouldn't worry too much about
> > compilers other than gcc, and I know that self-assignment is something
> > that C++ programmers need to worry about which is no doubt why the
> > warning is on for Clang.
> >
> > I did consider just reverting the previous patch, but fixing a warning
> > with a self-assignment just looks horrible to me, particularly when
> > the warning is about an uninitialized variable.  I mean, it looks to
> > me that a self-assignment actually creates an uninitialized variable
> > access at the abstract level, when there wasn't one there before!
> 
> For this particular case, self-assignment causes no harm since
> the variable will be initialized.

I didn't say there was any harm, just that I dislike the style and why
I dislike it.

> 
> Will
> 
> struct bfd_link_hash_entry ehdr_start_save = { 0 };
> 
> for all compilers?

No joy.  gcc-4.7.2

eelf64ppc.c: In function ‘gldelf64ppc_before_allocation’:
eelf64ppc.c:1899:10: error: missing braces around initializer [-Werror=missing-braces]
eelf64ppc.c:1899:10: error: (near initialization for ‘ehdr_start_save.root’) [-Werror=missing-braces]
eelf64ppc.c:1899:10: error: missing initializer [-Werror=missing-field-initializers]
eelf64ppc.c:1899:10: error: (near initialization for ‘ehdr_start_save.type’) [-Werror=missing-field-initializers]

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM