On 27.12.2012, at 19:49, Howard Hinnant wrote:
> On Dec 25, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <[email protected]>
> 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}.
For C++, isn't {} a better initializer? Unlike in C, in C++ (even 98) an empty
initializer list is valid, and it means the right thing. It could also be that
GCC doesn't emit a warning in this case.
Sebastian_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
