Fightwarn array initializers trivial#849
Merged
jimklimov merged 69 commits intonetworkupstools:masterfrom Nov 11, 2020
Merged
Conversation
…zer for bcdDevice
…ield and comment where a real nuf() might be useful
…d and comment where a real nuf() might be useful
…PC_UPS_DEVICE_MODEL like elsewhere
… comment concern whether the addition was right?)
jimklimov
force-pushed
the
fightwarn-array-initializers-trivial
branch
from
61775c3 to
70c2c1c
Compare
|
This pull request introduces 6 alerts when merging 70c2c1c into 8c1ad08 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR explicitly initializes all fields of our many arrays (mostly to same zero or NULL values as were defaulted implicitly).
Discovered thanks to CI improvements from #844
This one I intend to merge with little need for discussion, maybe within a week. Still, review and approval would be warmly appreciated :)
Note for reviewers: I tagged below in code review some points where discussions and decisions can be made (in future PRs if some change is deemed needed), but otherwise they seem harmless as in not blocking a merge.