public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/64709] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2015-01-21 12:32 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 12:49 ` [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-21 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We shouldn't warn on { 0 }.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-01-21 12:32 ` [Bug c/64709] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-21 12:49 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 13:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-21 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|Bogus |[5 Regression] Bogus
|-Wmissing-field-initializer |-Wmissing-field-initializer
|s warning |s warning
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-01-21 12:32 ` [Bug c/64709] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 12:49 ` [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-21 13:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 13:28 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-21 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I wonder if that might not be undesirable in some cases, perhaps allow the
users to choose? -Wmissing-field-initializers ==
-Wmissing-field-initializers=1 (enabled in -Wall or where) would do what you
suggest, -Wmissing-field-initializers=2 would warn even for this?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-01-21 13:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-21 13:28 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 14:10 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-21 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2015-01-21
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Maybe. There's an RFE for -Wmissing-field-initializers=2 in PR39589, though
that speaks about allowing the warning with designated initializers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-01-21 13:28 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-21 14:10 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 14:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-21 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
BTW, untested patch (dg.exp passes).
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c b/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
index f39dfdd..53d1a16 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
@@ -7556,20 +7556,28 @@ pop_init_level (location_t loc, int implicit,
}
}
- /* Initialization with { } counts as zeroinit. */
- if (vec_safe_length (constructor_elements) == 0)
- constructor_zeroinit = 1;
- /* If the constructor has more than one element, it can't be { 0 }. */
- else if (vec_safe_length (constructor_elements) != 1)
- constructor_zeroinit = 0;
+ switch (vec_safe_length (constructor_elements))
+ {
+ case 0:
+ /* Initialization with { } counts as zeroinit. */
+ constructor_zeroinit = 1;
+ break;
+ case 1:
+ /* This might be zeroinit as well. */
+ if (integer_zerop ((*constructor_elements)[0].value))
+ constructor_zeroinit = 1;
+ break;
+ default:
+ /* If the constructor has more than one element, it can't be { 0 }. */
+ constructor_zeroinit = 0;
+ break;
+ }
/* Warn when some structs are initialized with direct aggregation. */
if (!implicit && found_missing_braces && warn_missing_braces
&& !constructor_zeroinit)
- {
- warning_init (loc, OPT_Wmissing_braces,
- "missing braces around initializer");
- }
+ warning_init (loc, OPT_Wmissing_braces,
+ "missing braces around initializer");
/* Warn when some struct elements are implicitly initialized to zero. */
if (warn_missing_field_initializers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-01-21 14:10 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-21 14:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-29 21:03 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-29 21:03 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-21 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
What value will constructor_zeroinit have if it has a single element which is
not integer_zerop? Should we set it to 0 in that case?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-01-21 14:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-29 21:03 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-29 21:03 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-29 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jan 29 21:02:21 2015
New Revision: 220263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/64709
* c-typeck.c (pop_init_level): If constructor_elements has
exactly one element with integer_zerop value, set constructor_zeroinit
to 1. Remove braces around warning_init call.
* gcc.dg/pr64709.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr64709.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/c/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-01-29 21:03 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-29 21:03 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-29 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-01-29 21:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-64709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-01-21 12:32 ` [Bug c/64709] Bogus -Wmissing-field-initializers warning mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 12:49 ` [Bug c/64709] [5 Regression] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 13:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 13:28 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 14:10 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-21 14:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-29 21:03 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-29 21:03 ` 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).