https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87806
--- Comment #8 from Ulrich Windl ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> I don't think there are any, only for local typedefs. That's already enabled
> by -Wall so I assumed this was a request to add a new warning *and* enable
> it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87806
--- Comment #7 from Ulrich Windl ---
(In reply to Tavian Barnes from comment #4)
> Perhaps this is reasonable for types that are defined in the file itself,
> not in an included header?
That's what I was thinking about. However it seems the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87806
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think there are any, only for local typedefs. That's already enabled by
-Wall so I assumed this was a request to add a new warning *and* enable it in
-Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87806
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87806
Tavian Barnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tavianator at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87806
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ulrich Windl from comment #0)
> BTW: With having option -Wmissing-field-initializers I could even imagine to
> warn about single fields that are never used.
Again, this seems like a bad idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87806
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87806
--- Comment #1 from Ulrich Windl ---
This is an enhancement request (cant't set it in Bugzilla)
