http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-26
10:46:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > It seems to me you are right. However, I cannot see how to check for ={0} at
> > the point of the warning.
> >
> > Joseph, any ideas? This part of the C FE is ancient.
>
> In general I think Jakub is more expert on the code for handling
> initializers than I am.
OK, but do you agree that the warning should be silenced always for ={0}?
Jakub, do you have any pointers for this? At the point of the warning "value"
is null, so I am not sure how to check for ={0}. There is a boolean zeroinit
later,
bool constructor_zeroinit =
(VEC_length (constructor_elt, constructor_elements) == 1
&& integer_zerop
(VEC_index (constructor_elt, constructor_elements, 0)->value));
but this vector is not initialized in this case.
