https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think PR 61489 changed the behaviour for GCC 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
Nico changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nico.schloemer at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike ---
(In reply to Daniel Sommermann from comment #11)
> Created attachment 33627 [details]
> Test case showing overly strict warning
>
> This still produces false positives in C++11.
>
> I attached a test case wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
Daniel Sommermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcsommer at fb dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #10 from nightstrike ---
So should I open a new PR for not warning in C++? Because even the "= {0}"
case warns there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
My statement about zero-initialization was inaccurate (thanks), but the general
point still stands: in C you have to write ' = {0}' since empty-braces
initializer is not supported by the language (you get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike ---
Are you sure C++ works like that? I thought that member variables in a struct
would get default initialized to indeterminate values, as seen here:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/default_initializati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Nightstrike, is there a particular reason you want C++ warning behavior be
adjusted? Note that unlike C, in C++ you get zero-initialization by default,
so you don't need to write ' = {0};' to zero-initial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
Jackie Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jackie.rosen at hushmail dot
com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov 2011-04-22
11:53:05 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Fri Apr 22 11:53:01 2011
New Revision: 172857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172857
Log:
PR c/36750
* c-typeck.c (pop_init_le
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady 2010-11-24 12:09:33
UTC ---
A related thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1998-07/msg00031.html
14 matches
Mail list logo
