https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #2) > Thanks: I was confused (as I think will many folks be). Approximately everybody is confused by -Wmissing-field-initializers which is why people probably shouldn't use it. It specifically says the **initializer** is missing, not that initialization is missing. But everybody thinks it's telling them the member is uninitialized. The manual is at least clear: > the following code causes such a warning, because "x.h" is implicitly zero Unfortunately it also says: > This option does not warn about designated initializers which might be true for C, but not C++. Should it be true for C++?
