------- Comment #28 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 18:47 ------- (In reply to comment #25) > Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...' > warning about std::complex<T> > > schwab at suse dot de wrote: > > ------- Comment #23 from schwab at suse dot de 2005-11-16 14:20 ------- > > (In reply to comment #22) > > > >>Note I never said __imag__ a should not act like an lvalue. I just said that > >>__imag__ a = b; acts like a = COMPLEX<REAL<a>, b> which is just like what > >>a = (a&0xFFFF0000)|(b&0x0000FFFF) does. > > If the compiler wants to implement it that way, that's OK. > > What's not OK is to warn about the fact that the real part is > uninitialized. There is no user out there anywhere that wants to be > warned about this case; it is in fact valid code.
We're in violent agree on the diagnostic issue. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23497
