Thanks for the review, much appreciated. Agreed on all those points,
I'll remove it from -Wextra and just leave it as a standalone warning,
and I'll add those tests you suggested.
On 02/06/2025 19:08, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025, Peter Frost wrote:
Ping https://g
Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/672568.html
Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/672568.html
Missed the version 15 freeze with the last ping, I believe the project
is open for general development again now?
Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/672568.html
v3 Patch:
* adds documentation
* fixes formatting
* minor code cleanup
Currently the behaviour of Wmissing-field-initializers is inconsistent
between C and C++. The C warning assumes that missing designated
initializers are deliberate, and does not warn. The C++ warning doe
Hi all,
Pinginghttps://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662590.html for
a review if anyone has a moment.
Many thanks,
Peter
Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662590.html
v2 Patch:
* adds proper changelog text
* fixes typo in c.opt
Currently the behaviour of Wmissing-field-initializers is inconsistent
between C and C++. The C warning assumes that missing designated
initializers are deliberate, and does not warn. The C++ warning does warn
for missin
Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/661510.html
Currently the behaviour of Wmissing-field-initializers is inconsistent
between C and C++. The C warning assumes that missing designated
initializers are deliberate, and does not warn. The C++ warning does warn
for missing designated initializers.
This patch changes the behaviour of Wmissing-field
10 matches
Mail list logo
