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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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
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
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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
