https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #27 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Waynem Ccollough from comment #26)
> Does the issue already fixed?
For the simplest cases, it is. But complex cases still trigger a warning, see
e.g. PR 80454.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Waynem Ccollough changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||waynemccollough at gmx dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #24 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #20)
Sorry, the patch hasn't been applied to 4.9 nor 4.8 branch yet, and I don't
think it should be backported as-is, because just today I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Askar Safin safinaskar at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||safinaskar at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #22 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
The warning is probably correct for C++ because C++ has {} as its universal
zero initializer, and {0} may not (unsure about this; I'm not a C++ expert)
even be valid as an initializer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #23 from Askar Safin safinaskar at mail dot ru ---
Please remove {0} warning at least in cases where {0} is obviously OK (such as
addrinfo)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #20 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry, the patch hasn't been applied to 4.9 nor 4.8 branch yet, and I don't
think it should be backported as-is, because just today I found out that the
patch contains a bug; see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
roger pack rogerdpack at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rogerdpack at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Rose Garcia rose.garcia-eggl2fk at yopmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm sorry, GCC 4.7 branch is already closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #18 from Rose Garcia rose.garcia-eggl2fk at yopmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33229
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33229action=edit
backported fix for gcc 4.8.3
oh, is that so? that's unfortunate, as gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jun 5 19:36:03 2014
New Revision: 211289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211289root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-05 S. Gilles sgil...@terpmail.umd.edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #14 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
In C++, the correct zero initializer is {}, not {0}. I'm not an expert in C++
but I think {0} in C++ might even be a constraint violation unless the brace
level happens to match.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to JamesH from comment #10)
Therefore, is there any progress on this bug?
I wouldn't expect any soon, unless new developers join GCC development and
decide to work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
JamesH jnahughes at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jnahughes at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2012-04-26 10:37:26 UTC ---
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
It seems to me you are right. However, I cannot see how to check for ={0} at
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2012-04-26 10:50:38 UTC ---
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
OK, but do you agree that the warning should be silenced always for ={0}?
Yes, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx 2012-04-25 18:01:41
UTC ---
Sorry, I wrote the bug report without GCC in front of me. The correct name for
the warning option is -Wmissing-braces.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25
18:12:29 UTC ---
I can't get reproduce this.
Could you provide a small reproducible testcase?
Plus the info asked here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx 2012-04-25 18:32:08
UTC ---
Created attachment 27242
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27242
minimal test case
Glibc's mbstate_t is defined as a struct whose first element
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
26 matches
Mail list logo
