Thanks for cleaning up gfortran code. I was curious about
what the GNU Coding Standard said about this case, but it
does not consider initialization of subobjects. I did find
5.3 Clean Use of C Constructs
...
Don't make the program ugly just to placate static
analysis tools such as lint, clang, and GCC with extra
warnings options such as -Wconversion and -Wundef.
These tools can help find bugs and unclear code, but
they can also generate so many false alarms that it hurts
readability to silence them with unnecessary casts,
wrappers, and other complications.
I do not see the extra '{...}' as hurting readability. I
have no objection to the change. Does anyone else have a
comment?
--
steve
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 04:18:16PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when GCC is built with clang, it suggests that we add a brace to the
> initialization of format_asterisk:
>
> gcc/fortran/io.cc:32:16: warning: suggest braces around initialization of
> subobject [-Wmissing-braces]
>
> So this patch does that to silence it.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linx. OK for master?
>
> Alternatively, as with all of these clang warning issues, I'm
> perfectly happy to add an entry to contrib/filter-clang-warnings.py to
> ignore the warning instead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
>
> 2025-06-24 Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz>
>
> * io.cc (format_asterisk): Add a brace around static initialization
> location part of the field locus.
> ---
> gcc/fortran/io.cc | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/io.cc b/gcc/fortran/io.cc
> index 7466d8fe094..4d28c2c90ba 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/io.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/io.cc
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
>
> gfc_st_label
> format_asterisk = {0, NULL, NULL, -1, ST_LABEL_FORMAT, ST_LABEL_FORMAT, NULL,
> - 0, {NULL, NULL}, NULL, 0};
> + 0, {NULL, {NULL}}, NULL, 0};
>
> typedef struct
> {
> --
> 2.49.0
--
Steve
