https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #7 from Gubbins <dave.gittins at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Gubbins from comment #6) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > > (In reply to Gubbins from comment #2) > > > The original bug report points that in C++11 this is *not* aggregate > > > initialization, but is in fact value initialization (because this is a > > > class > > > type with a default constructor). > > > > No it isn't, it's an aggregate. > > It's clear that A is an aggregate type, but it is also a class type with a > default constructor. Doesn't the quoted section of the C++11 specification > therefore state that the object should be value-initialized? Anyway, even if this is classified as aggregate initialization (which I believe it is in C++14?), I believe the behaviour should be changed. The distinction between value-initializing a class and aggregate-initializing it with zero field initializers is not a useful one here, IMHO - it's more of a technicality. The result is the same either way (if we, say, add a base class to A in the example then A is no longer aggregate and we get the same initialization outcome with no warning). The current warning behaviour is an annoyance that means I either need to disable -Wmissing-field-initializers (I prefer to keep it enabled) or initialize my object in a more long-winded way. Coming at it the other way, the point of the warning is presumably to catch errors in which the user accidentally supplies only N initializers for M fields, which is good. I'd suggest that when N=0, it's very unlikely to be an accident! I propose that the missing-field-initializers warning should not apply to empty aggregate initialization lists, but a separate (new) warning -Wempty-field-initializers could be added which warns for such empty lists if your class happens to be aggregate.
