Am 10.10.2016 um 12:20 schrieb Martin Nowak:
On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:03:53 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Of course, the new error is more restrictive than it should be, namely
if the uninitialized pointer field gets written before the first read,
it would still be safe.

That's surprising b/c void initializers for struct fields didn't use to

Hm, thanks for the hint - if that's still the case, that leads to the very simple workaround of simply removing the "= void". Would have been nice in theory to have real void initialization of course, plus it was there for working around that (fixed?) issue with slow compilation times for large static arrays, but there is probably no real reason now to keep it.

I need to research the intent behind this to say sth. detailed, though
usually an shouldn't break working code, only deprecate it.

Reply via email to