[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

2017-04-20 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov --- Author: amonakov Date: Thu Apr 20 10:23:38 2017 New Revision: 247018 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247018&root=gcc&view=rev Log: doc: mention handling of {0} in -Wmissing-field-initializers (PR 71

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

2017-04-20 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

2017-04-18 Thread vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4) > Note that that's a different warning: -Wmissing-braces, not > -Wmissing-field-initializers. I believe it would be nice to fix, but > handling of universal

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

2017-04-18 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov --- Note that that's a different warning: -Wmissing-braces, not -Wmissing-field-initializers. I believe it would be nice to fix, but handling of universal zero initializers in -Wmissing-braces should be a se

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

2017-04-18 Thread vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre --- However, it seems that GCC doesn't support the { 0 } idiom in all cases. For instance: #include struct { struct { int a; long b; } x; int y; } s = { { 1 }, 1 }; struct { struct { int a; long b; } x; int

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

2017-04-18 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov --- Thanks. Basically the documentation can be enhanced to mention that GCC shouldn't (and wouldn't) warn for universal zero initializer, which is '{0}' in C and just '{}' in C++. After a day or so I can subm

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

2017-04-18 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|