Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix some missing field initializer warnings #410

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 7, 2023

Conversation

svillar
Copy link
Contributor

@svillar svillar commented Jun 20, 2023

The code was actually initializing the fields after the struct initialization but the compiler is not smart enough to acknowledge that. Explicitly initialize the fields one by one to remove the warnings.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jun 20, 2023

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@rpavlik
Copy link
Contributor

rpavlik commented Jun 20, 2023

Thanks for this! I believe I just actually merged a similar MR internally that just hasn't made it to release yet, sorry for the duplication of effort. I'll double check to make sure the one I merged includes all these details.

@rpavlik rpavlik self-assigned this Jun 20, 2023
@rpavlik rpavlik self-requested a review June 20, 2023 18:37
@svillar
Copy link
Contributor Author

svillar commented Jun 22, 2023

Thanks for this! I believe I just actually merged a similar MR internally that just hasn't made it to release yet, sorry for the duplication of effort. I'll double check to make sure the one I merged includes all these details.

OK, so any plans to merge this soon? Anything else required from my side?

The code was actually initializing the fields after the struct
initialization but the compiler is not smart enough to acknowledge
that. Explicitly initialize the fields one by one to remove the
warnings.
@rpavlik rpavlik force-pushed the missing-field-initialization branch from a41e31c to deba3bf Compare July 7, 2023 21:38
Copy link
Contributor

@rpavlik rpavlik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@rpavlik rpavlik merged commit 3de8c9b into KhronosGroup:main Jul 7, 2023
5 of 8 checks passed
@lewa-j
Copy link

lewa-j commented Jul 8, 2023

I think utils_callback_data.next is missing

@rpavlik
Copy link
Contributor

rpavlik commented Jul 8, 2023

A more complete change is coming in the next release soon, that I think handles all of them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants