public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [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; 5+ 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] 5+ 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 ` [Bug c/39525] [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members 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; 5+ 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] 5+ 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 ` [Bug c/39525] [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members 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; 5+ 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] 5+ 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: " 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; 5+ 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] 5+ 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: " 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; 5+ 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] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-03-26 6:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-39525-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-03-25 22:02 ` [Bug c/39525] [easy to fix bug] Docs for C99 "designated initializers" isn't clear what happens to omitted field members 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
2009-03-23 11:10 [Bug c/39525] New: " 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
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).