https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868
roland at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |roland at gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from roland at gnu dot org ---
IMHO there's a good case to be made for never warning for designated
initializers, even for fields that have uninitialized default-construction.
When using a designated initializer, `= {.a=value}` doesn't leave any field `b`
uninitialized, it initializes it as `= {}` would, i.e. safely zero for base
types, etc. When I write `= {.a=value}` that default-or-zero-initialization of
the other fields is exactly what I intended, and I know well that omitted
fields in an initializer are different from leaving the fields uninitialized.
Clearly opinions on this vary. It seems like it merits having separable option
configuration: `-Wmissing-field-initializers`,
`-Wmissing-designated-field-initializers`. If that flexibility is available,
then it's of less concern what the default state with just
`-Wmissing-field-initializers` or `-Wextra` is.
The separate question remains whether "missing initializer" vs "missing
(explicit) initialization" should also be distinguished differently in the
available warning states than what we have today. I don't have much opinion
about that one as long as there's a way for me to say that:
```
struct s { int a, b; };
s foo = {.a=1};
```
is acceptable without warning in C++, even if it requires a different option
state than to accept:
```
struct s { int a; int b = 0; };
s foo = {.a=1};
```
