https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14) > Created attachment 55092 [details] > gcc14-pr109868.patch > > I think the FE shouldn't initialize those, rather than gimplifier fixing it > up later. > In fact, I think we shouldn't initialize any unnamed bitfields, but am not > changing that, because zero initialization is supposed to clear all padding > bytes and !CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING certainly doesn't guarantee that in the > middle-end, I think we need some other CONSTRUCTOR flag and middle-end > assurance > that the padding bits are then cleared. Yes this looks better.
