[Bug c++/120498] error: either all initializer clauses should be designated or none of them should be when designated-initialising nested union members(?) (same code accepted as C)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120498 --- Comment #10 from наб --- Cool. Can you reach the same conclusion about the original unminified sample which uses struct sigaction's sa_handler member directly? #include struct sigaction sa = {.sa_flags = SA_RESETHAND, .sa_handler = 0};

[Bug c++/120498] error: either all initializer clauses should be designated or none of them should be when designated-initialising nested union members(?) (same code accepted as C)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120498 --- Comment #6 from наб --- It already issues `-Wmissing-field-initializers` with `-Wall -Wextra` for sa, the issue at hand, if you decide that this is an error, is that the errors you get aren't helpful.

[Bug c++/120498] error: either all initializer clauses should be designated or none of them should be when designated-initialising nested union members(?) (same code accepted as C)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120498 --- Comment #3 from наб --- Sure, I build with -Wno-c99-extensions so I didn't really clock it. Even if you consider GCC erroring on this instead of warning to be correct (which I don't think is useful to anyone), the error is meaningless as-is

[Bug c++/120498] New: error: either all initializer clauses should be designated or none of them should be when designated-initialising nested union members(?) (same code accepted as C)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120498 Bug ID: 120498 Summary: error: either all initializer clauses should be designated or none of them should be when designated-initialising nested union members(?) (same

[Bug target/118676] Getting "the ABI of passing union with ‘long double’ has changed in GCC 4.4" warning for a function that doesn't take long double and isn't subject to ABI at all (static)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118676 --- Comment #4 from наб --- Thanks, I'll put that in there. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html doesn't seem to indicate this change affects return values, either (it only says "passed"). I think static-linkage functions co

[Bug c++/118676] New: Getting "the ABI of passing union with ‘long double’ has changed in GCC 4.4" warning for a function that doesn't take long double and isn't subject to ABI at all (static)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118676 Bug ID: 118676 Summary: Getting "the ABI of passing union with ‘long double’ has changed in GCC 4.4" warning for a function that doesn't take long double and isn't subject to ABI at

[Bug c/117853] New: "warning: '?:' using integer constants in boolean context, the expression will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wint-in-bool-context]" but no ?: in sight

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117853 Bug ID: 117853 Summary: "warning: '?:' using integer constants in boolean context, the expression will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wint-in-bool-context]" but no ?: in sight

[Bug c++/116476] New: error: binding reference of type 'int&&' to 'const int' discards qualifiers for std::vector> f{2}; (OK under Clang and GCC<=13)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116476 Bug ID: 116476 Summary: error: binding reference of type 'int&&' to 'const int' discards qualifiers for std::vector> f{2}; (OK under Clang and GCC<=13) Product: gcc

[Bug c++/114165] New: &scalar+1 and array+1 rejected as template parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114165 Bug ID: 114165 Summary: &scalar+1 and array+1 rejected as template parameters Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug c++/111895] New: error: invalid operands of types 'unsigned char:2' and 'int' to binary 'operator!='

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111895 Bug ID: 111895 Summary: error: invalid operands of types 'unsigned char:2' and 'int' to binary 'operator!=' Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug c++/106604] New: Fully-specified deduction guide in anonymous namespace warns as-if a function? Unsuppressably?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106604 Bug ID: 106604 Summary: Fully-specified deduction guide in anonymous namespace warns as-if a function? Unsuppressably? Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED