From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28081 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2009 06:41:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 28046 invoked by uid 48); 2 Feb 2009 06:41:17 -0000 Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090202064117.28045.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/38928] infinite loop on error message in C++ only In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-02 06:41 ------- Yes, designated initializers are of course a GNU extension to C++. I'm surprised that icc accepts them in its strict mode. In GNU C++, it makes sense for us to accept the same extensions that are accepted in GNU C. So, if GCC accepts this, I think G++ should too. (I don't know what the initialization of "id_struct" with "0" means, though; does it only initialize the first element of id_struct::is_ip_addrs?) However, the GCC and G++ code that processes initializers is, I think, mostly if not totally distinct. So, it's likely that some significant work would need to be done to handle this case. -- Mark -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38928