On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]
> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:49:06PM -0500, Howard Hinnant wrote:
> > > @@ -4583,7 +4584,7 @@
> > > string
> > > __time_get_storage<char>::__analyze(char fmt, const ctype<char>& ct)
> > > {
> > > - tm t = {0};
> > > + tm t = {0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
> > > t.tm_sec = 59;
> > > t.tm_min = 55;
> > > t.tm_hour = 23;
> > > @@ -4729,7 +4730,7 @@
> > > wstring
> > > __time_get_storage<wchar_t>::__analyze(char fmt, const
> ctype<wchar_t>& ct)
> > > {
> > > - tm t = {0};
> > > + tm t = {0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
> > > t.tm_sec = 59;
> > > t.tm_min = 55;
> > > t.tm_hour = 23;
> >
> > Rejected. tm contains *at least* 9 int data members. The portable and
> > concise way to zero initialize this struct is with the single {0}.
>
> What about using memset as alternative?
Why? The compiler warning from GCC is simply wrong. The other members are
in fact initialized. I see no reason to use a more verbose construct which
requires a declaration of an external function merely to avoid a patently
incorrect warning.
Also, as Richard Smith pointed out when this was discussed on IRC, memset
is incorrect for some C++ constructs (pointers-to-members).
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
