From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-390567-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8936 invoked by alias); 2 May 2012 21:17:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 8924 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2012 21:17:15 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 May 2012 21:17:03 +0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/53196] unknown struct name in C99 compound initializer doesn't generate error
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 21:17:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53196-4-Z0jFabPCmM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53196-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53196-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53196

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-02 21:17:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > That's simply because compound literals aren't valid in C++.
> 
> So this page is wrong? 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Compound-Literals.html

I didn't realise it was claimed to work in C++, but yes, I guess the docs are
wrong.  C++ provides several portable forms of initialization, there's really
no need to support another non-standard one.

These will all work for aggregate types (including "C structs")

foo f{};
foo f = {};
foo f = foo{};
foo f = foo();

I'll propose a patch to fix the docs.