[Bug c/24010] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Duplicate C99 dot initializer warning missing

2006-09-30 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-30 16:20 --- Working on a fix. In view of legitimate uses for this in conjunction with GNU extensions, such as int a[1] = { [0 ... ] = 10, [5] = 0, [1000] = 0 }; (giving an array a non-0 default value), the new warning

[Bug c/24010] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Duplicate C99 dot initializer warning missing

2006-09-30 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-30 19:46 --- Subject: Bug 24010 Author: jsm28 Date: Sat Sep 30 19:46:06 2006 New Revision: 117334 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117334 Log: PR c/24010 * c.opt (Woverride-init): New.

[Bug c/24010] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Duplicate C99 dot initializer warning missing

2006-09-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-30 23:30 --- Fixed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c/24010] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Duplicate C99 dot initializer warning missing

2006-09-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 20:06 --- Confirmed, a regression from 2.95.3 which gave: t.c:8: field `a' already initialized -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/24010] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Duplicate C99 dot initializer warning missing

2006-09-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 20:13 --- The behavior was changed by: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-01/msg01011.html This is valid C99 but having a warning is nice. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24010

[Bug c/24010] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Duplicate C99 dot initializer warning missing

2006-09-03 Thread segher at kernel dot crashing dot org
--- Comment #3 from segher at kernel dot crashing dot org 2006-09-03 20:39 --- The overwriting behaviour is required by 6.7.8/18 and 19. A warning is certainly in order; long ago, GCC used to warn, and bugs were caught because of that. Not anymore... I'll see if I can do a patch.