[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 Waynem Ccollough changed: What|Removed |Added CC||waynemccollough at gmx dot com --- Comment #26 from Waynem Ccollough --- Does the issue already fixed? Waynem Ccollough https://amsterdamdiary.com/
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 Vincent Lefèvre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net --- Comment #25 from Vincent Lefèvre --- On the same subject, I've reported a new bug: PR 80454.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 found out that the patch contains a bug; see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709 Now that PR64709 is fixed, could you please backport both to 4.9 (and possibly 4.8)?
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 Askar Safin safinaskar at mail dot ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||safinaskar at mail dot ru --- Comment #21 from Askar Safin safinaskar at mail dot ru --- Same bug in clang: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21689 Related bug in POSIX: http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=918 And I think this bug should be fixed even in C++, just because we should have some uniform way to initialize addrinfo and mbstate_t in both C and C++ :) (And gcc 4.9.2 emits warning for C++ but not for C)
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 for some C++ types. Comments from others more
experienced in C++ would be welcome.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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)
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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=64709
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 roger pack rogerdpack at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rogerdpack at gmail dot com --- Comment #19 from roger pack rogerdpack at gmail dot com --- Has this been applied yet? (If yes, in which version of gcc?) Seems to be a popular problem, if it's this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13746033/how-to-repair-warning-missing-braces-around-initializer
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 Rose Garcia rose.garcia-eggl2fk at yopmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rose.garcia-eggl2fk@yopmail ||.com --- Comment #16 from Rose Garcia rose.garcia-eggl2fk at yopmail dot com --- Created attachment 33228 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33228action=edit backported fix for gcc 4.7.4 backported fix for gcc 4.7.4 attached. was tested building about 500 packages, no regressions have been detected.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 4.7 requires a C++ compiler to bootstrap a C compiler. either way, attaching a backport to gcc 4.8.3. unlike the previous backport it wasn't heavily tested, but it seemed to do the right thing in some simple testcases; and there was only one minor change needed to get the upstream patch to apply (different argument count for init_warning()).
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 PR c/53119 * c-typeck.c (push_init_level, process_init_element, pop_init_level): Correct check for zero initialization, move missing brace warning to respect zero initialization. PR c/53119 * gcc.dg/pr53119.c: New testcase. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr53119.c Modified: trunk/gcc/c/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/c/c-typeck.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com --- Comment #13 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com --- This is related to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750 Can someone update the see also field? Also, can this change be applied to c++ as well? Initializing a c struct in c++ code exhibits the same behavior.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Should be fixed.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 on the C FE. Any takers?
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
JamesH jnahughes at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jnahughes at googlemail dot com
--- Comment #10 from JamesH jnahughes at googlemail dot com ---
I'd like to add that this is a definite problem when moving a codebase from a
different compiler to gcc. I'm having to individually fix up ={0} cases to
match the content of the structure being initialised, which is a PITA, and I
think against the C standard which I believe allows ={0} as a default zero
initialiser for structs of whatever content.
Therefore, is there any progress on this bug?
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 reconfirmed|2012-04-25 00:00:00 |2012-05-03 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-03 17:54:37 UTC --- Maybe related PR25137 Confirmed by Joseph. Any help welcome!
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 point of the warning.
Joseph, any ideas? This part of the C FE is ancient.
In general I think Jakub is more expert on the code for handling
initializers than I am.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-26
10:46:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
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 point of the warning.
Joseph, any ideas? This part of the C FE is ancient.
In general I think Jakub is more expert on the code for handling
initializers than I am.
OK, but do you agree that the warning should be silenced always for ={0}?
Jakub, do you have any pointers for this? At the point of the warning value
is null, so I am not sure how to check for ={0}. There is a boolean zeroinit
later,
bool constructor_zeroinit =
(VEC_length (constructor_elt, constructor_elements) == 1
integer_zerop
(VEC_index (constructor_elt, constructor_elements, 0)-value));
but this vector is not initialized in this case.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 think that makes sense.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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 is an int (not another struct/union/array), so the warning does not happen there. I'm uploading a minimal example case with an explicitly defined struct.
[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}
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
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|1 |0
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25
22:13:11 UTC ---
It seems to me you are right. However, I cannot see how to check for ={0} at
the point of the warning.
Joseph, any ideas? This part of the C FE is ancient.
