On 1/11/21 6:19 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This PR wants us not to warn about missing field initializers when
the code in question takes places in decltype and similar.
Hmm, the warning seems of questionable utility with templated code like
this, but I guess this is a reasonable middle ground.
This PR wants us not to warn about missing field initializers when
the code in question takes places in decltype and similar. Fixed
thus.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/98620
* typeck2.c (process_init_constructor_record): Do
