Hi,
On 10/18/2012 03:17 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, I thought I fixed a very similar bug recently.
I'm concerned that this change will cause problems with brace-elision
situations. But then again, can we have a zero-length array followed
by anything else?
If I understand correctly your hesitations, I don't think there are
exceptions to the general rule that if the size of the array is zero
there can be no initializers. This morning I investigated in some detail
this special case (from a testcase I recently added, pr43765.C):
struct SomeType
{
const char *values[];
};
it's in fact related because we parse it as:
struct SomeType
{
const char *values[0];
};
(per grokdeclarator around line 10246). Given the way we parse it (not
completely uncontroversial, IMHO, but that would be a separate issue),
we do the right thing, we accept:
SomeType s = { };
and we reject:
SomeType s = { 1 };
Only the wording of the error changes (from "too many initializers" to
"initializers provided") (*)
In any case, I can't imagine a different, safer, way to handle the issue
we are facing. Do you have anything specific to suggest?
Thanks,
Paolo.
(*) Moreover we likewise accept:
SomeType s = { { } };
and likewise reject:
SomeType s = { { { } } };
