The manual is incorrect in saying that the option does not warn
about designated initializers, which it does in C++. Whether the
divergence in behavior is desirable is another thing, but let's
at least make the manual match the reality.
PR c/39589
PR c++/96868
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/invoke.texi: Clarify that -Wmissing-field-initializers doesn't
warn about designated initializers in C only.
---
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 6d08229ce40..0870f7aff93 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -9591,8 +9591,9 @@ struct s @{ int f, g, h; @};
struct s x = @{ 3, 4 @};
@end smallexample
-This option does not warn about designated initializers, so the following
-modification does not trigger a warning:
+@c It's unclear if this behavior is desirable. See PR39589 and PR96868.
+In C this option does not warn about designated initializers, so the
+following modification does not trigger a warning:
@smallexample
struct s @{ int f, g, h; @};
base-commit: 1379ae33e05c28d705f3c69a3f6c774bf6e83136
--
2.40.1
