From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-71166-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28377 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2003 18:14:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 18881 invoked by uid 48); 24 Sep 2003 14:16:25 -0000
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:36:00 -0000
From: "levon at movementarian dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Message-ID: <20030924141618.12391.levon@movementarian.org>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/12391] New: regression: missing warning about assigning to an incomplete  type
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg01867.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12391

           Summary: regression: missing warning about assigning to an
                    incomplete  type
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.4
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P2
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: levon at movementarian dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org

Consider:

typedef struct { int a; } b_t;
int foo() { b_t d; struct b_t * c = &d; c->a; }

gcc 3.2 says :

a.c: In function `foo':
a.c:2: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
a.c:2: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type

GNU C version 3.4 20030914 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) says :

a.c: In function `foo':
a.c:2: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type

Note the missing warning on initialisation. This can be moderately confusing
because the latter looks exactly like a "missing header" problem, but in fact
the problem is prepending the "struct" before the typedef name, which is
actually an incomplete type of "struct b_t".

The missing warning makes it obvious that it's not as simple as a missing
header.