From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 02B71385829E; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:22:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 02B71385829E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705011742;
	bh=axwdaYxsvHbJMnoQiCi8FiQMUFCuGBgZO8LyCfz7y1w=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=a8wWXJzPsq+r6q67Y2wHHK8BBBRzQ6paphsa1K1I0xolwYGJIEsQii8c/dPN7O5Y3
	 kXvZ0JX9qoEGfdcP4OEFp4/irdR7UYDhXeI1fx2MmRhVcbY6lkPnmv4DLIsrOdogyc
	 e3YVSrBKDtpLWb1LuXh4xH7j8zjW729NipMltXfE=
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/113124] g++ should relax designated initialiser rules for
 trivial classes (read: C structures) and C arrays.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:22:21 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on cc
Message-ID: <bug-113124-4-gcL9ULA2Ge@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113124-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113124-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113124

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-01-11
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Doing this for constant initializers for C compatibility makes sense to me.=
=20
But it isn't just a matter of adjusting the diagnostic, we would also need =
to
actually do the sorting to make the initialization work.  Still probably not
that much work, but not trivial.=