On 6/11/20 5:28 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:51:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/9/20 2:17 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Another part of 95369 is that we accept designated initializers with
non-aggregate types. That seems to be wrong since they're part of
aggregate initi
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:51:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 6/9/20 2:17 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Another part of 95369 is that we accept designated initializers with
> > non-aggregate types. That seems to be wrong since they're part of
> > aggregate initialization. clang/icc also reje
On 6/9/20 2:17 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Another part of 95369 is that we accept designated initializers with
non-aggregate types. That seems to be wrong since they're part of
aggregate initialization. clang/icc also reject it.
(Un)fortunately there are multiple contexts where we can use design
Another part of 95369 is that we accept designated initializers with
non-aggregate types. That seems to be wrong since they're part of
aggregate initialization. clang/icc also reject it.
(Un)fortunately there are multiple contexts where we can use designated
initializers: function-like casts, me
