(In reply to Kimmo Lindholm from comment #0)
> Due harbour restrictions, my project bundles nemokeepalive (and libiphb)
> within the executable.

compile in toholed tree boils down to:

sb2 gcc\
  -c\
  -g\
  -Wall\
  -W\
  -Wno-missing-field-initializers\
  -D_REENTRANT\
  -fPIE\
  -DAPPVERSION=\"\"\
  -I.\
  -I.\
  -c src/libiphb.c

and "normal" compile in libiphb tree to:

sb2 gcc\
  -I.\
  -D_GNU_SOURCE\
  -Wall\
  -Wmissing-prototypes\
  -std=c99\
  -Os\
  -g\
  -fPIC\
  -O2\
  -g\
  -Wall\
  -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2\
  -fexceptions\
  -fstack-protector\
  --param=ssp-buffer-size=4\
  -Wformat\
  -Wformat-security\
  -fmessage-length=0\
  -march=armv7-a\
  -mfloat-abi=hard\
  -mfpu=vfpv3-d16\
  -mno-thumb\
  -Wno-psabi\
  -fPIC\
  -DPIC\
  -c src/libiphb.c

The significant difference from warnings point of view is that
"-W" is used in toholed, but not in libiphb itself.

> When building this project (in QtCreator) it throws following warnings for
> libiphb.c:

> libiphb.c: In function 'iphb_wait2':
> libiphb.c:171:10: warning: missing initializer [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
> libiphb.c:171:10: warning: (near initialization for 'req.u')
> [-Wmissing-field-initializers]

Being able to leave out initializer fields for auto structures and
have them initialized to zero or null depending on type is a (c99)
language feature. (IIRC pre c99 initializations like this were
required to be made for global structs only).

It is used on purpose here - in fact we rely on older versions of
libiphb having zero initialized padding in the message data so
that dsme can tell apart iphb_wait() and iphb_wait2() requests on
protocol level (in case there are forked off old versions of
libiphb statically linked to some projects....)

Suggestion:
* Add "-Wno-missing-field-initializers" after "-W" to toholed.
* Use both "-W" and "-Wno-missing-field-initializers" in libiphb.

> libiphb.c:235:37: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer
> expressions [-Wsign-compare]
> libiphb.c: In function 'iphb_get_stats':
> libiphb.c:273:10: warning: missing initializer [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
> libiphb.c:273:10: warning: (near initialization for 'req.u')
> [-Wmissing-field-initializers]

This is clearly wrong and must be fixed.

However it should not cause misfunction because it is effectively:
 signed_t0 = monotime();
  :
 signed_t1 = monotime();
 if( signed_t1 - signed_t0 < unsigned_limit ) ...

and (signed_t1 - signed_t0) >= 0

Taking bug.

Looks like using named member style initialization removes
the warning even without "-Wno-missing-field-initializers"

-  struct _iphb_req_t  req = {IPHB_STAT};
+  struct _iphb_req_t  req = { .cmd = IPHB_STAT, };

But warnings are still generated for:
   struct foo bar = { };

Since this is more compact and portable than resetting with
memset() & co [NULL can be != bitwise zero] -> disabling the
warning seems better choice.

(In reply to Simo Piiroinen from comment #2)
> Since this is more compact and portable than resetting with
> memset() & co [NULL can be != bitwise zero] -> disabling the
> warning seems better choice.

That was just one place, in code I just added -> left the warning
active after all.

Pull request:
https://github.com/nemomobile/libiphb/pull/12

(In reply to Simo Piiroinen from comment #3)
> Pull request:
> https://github.com/nemomobile/libiphb/pull/12

kimmoli: When you have time, can you check if that improves things for you?

(In reply to Simo Piiroinen from comment #4)
> (In reply to Simo Piiroinen from comment #3)
> > Pull request:
> > https://github.com/nemomobile/libiphb/pull/12
> 
> kimmoli: When you have time, can you check if that improves things for you?

<kimmoli> spiiroin: clean build with mer1005_enable_extra_warnings
<spiiroin> kimmoli: thanks, I'll merge it now

Merged, libiphb 1.2.4 tagged -> FIXED