On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:50:45PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Here the problem is that we issue a bogus "missing initializer" warning
> even for zero-initializer "{ 0 }". So in case we're sure we have such
> a zero-initializer, suppress the warning. If the constructor has a single
> element which is not zero, don't set anything; it might be a constructor
> from another init level, which is checked at a different time.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2015-01-29 Marek Polacek <[email protected]>
>
> PR c/64709
> * c-typeck.c (pop_init_level): If constructor_elements has
> exactly one element with integer_zerop value, set constructor_zeroinit
> to 1. Remove braces around warning_init call.
>
> * gcc.dg/pr64709.c: New test.
Ok, thanks.
Jakub
