public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/39525] New: [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members
@ 2009-03-23 11:10 mnemo at minimum dot se
2009-03-23 13:30 ` [Bug c/39525] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-23 13:48 ` mnemo at minimum dot se
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: mnemo at minimum dot se @ 2009-03-23 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The documentation for C99 "designated initializers" is not clear what happens
to omitted field members. I'm fairly sure omitted field members get initialized
to the same value they would get if they were static but it would be very nice
to have this explicitly called out in the docs.
The documentation page I'm referring to is available here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Designated-Inits.html
In particular I would like the documentation to explain what the values of
struct my_struct { bool a; int b; double c; };
struct my_struct ms = { .b = 42 };
At this point, what is the values of ms.a and ms.c? As I mention above, I
suspect the answer is that they have been initialized to the same values that
the corresponding data types would get if they were static variables? i.e.
false and 0.0, no?
--
Summary: [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers"
isn't clear what happens to omitted field members
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mnemo at minimum dot se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/39525] [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members 2009-03-23 11:10 [Bug c/39525] New: [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members mnemo at minimum dot se @ 2009-03-23 13:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-23 13:48 ` mnemo at minimum dot se 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-23 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs ------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-23 13:30 ------- Hmm, how so? The C standard is clear that these fields are zero initialized if omitted. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/39525] [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members 2009-03-23 11:10 [Bug c/39525] New: [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members mnemo at minimum dot se 2009-03-23 13:30 ` [Bug c/39525] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-23 13:48 ` mnemo at minimum dot se 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: mnemo at minimum dot se @ 2009-03-23 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs ------- Comment #2 from mnemo at minimum dot se 2009-03-23 13:48 ------- If you could just add that info in a single sentence to the GCC docs, it would be very helpful for end users. Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <bug-39525-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>]
* [Bug c/39525] [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members [not found] <bug-39525-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> @ 2014-03-25 22:02 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-26 6:56 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-26 6:59 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-25 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525 Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed| |2014-03-25 CC| |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I've posted a patch for this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01383.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/39525] [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members [not found] <bug-39525-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2014-03-25 22:02 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-26 6:56 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-26 6:59 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-26 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Mar 26 06:55:39 2014 New Revision: 208835 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208835&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/39525 * doc/extend.texi (Designated Inits): Describe what happens to omitted field members. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/39525] [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members [not found] <bug-39525-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2014-03-25 22:02 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-26 6:56 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-26 6:59 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-26 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525 Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Fixed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-03-26 6:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-03-23 11:10 [Bug c/39525] New: [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members mnemo at minimum dot se
2009-03-23 13:30 ` [Bug c/39525] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-23 13:48 ` mnemo at minimum dot se
[not found] <bug-39525-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-03-25 22:02 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-26 6:56 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-26 6:59 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).