Fw: strange 'warning: missing initializer'

Fw: strange 'warning: missing initializer'

[Jiri Slaby]

> Hi,
>
> what's the difference for gcc in dot notation and direct value here:
> cat >c.c <<EOF
> struct {
>         unsigned int a, b;
> } b[] = {
>         { .a = 0 }
> }, c[] = {
>         { 0 }
> };
> EOF
>
> Why $ gcc -W c.c -occ -c
> c.c:6: warning: missing initializer
> c.c:6: warning: (near initialization for 'c[0].b')
> complains only for c[] (and not for b[])?
>
> I use $ gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 4.1.1 20061011 (Red Hat 4.1.1-30)
> and $ gcc34 --version
> gcc34 (GCC) 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-4)
> with the same result.
>
> Any clues?

please, could you answer the question for me here? (I tried gcc.gnu newsgroup
for the first time)

thanks,
-- 
http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/            Jiri Slaby
faculty of informatics, masaryk university, brno, cz
e-mail: jirislaby gmail com, gpg pubkey fingerprint:
B674 9967 0407 CE62 ACC8  22A0 32CC 55C3 39D4 7A7E

Re: strange 'warning: missing initializer'

[John Love-Jensen]

Hi Jiri,

As per the documentation,
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html

-Wmissing-field-initializers
Warn if a structure's initializer has some fields missing. For example, the
following code would cause such a warning, because x.h is implicitly zero:
  struct s { int f, g, h; };
  struct s x = { 3, 4 };

This option does not warn about designated initializers, so the following
modification would not trigger a warning:

  struct s { int f, g, h; };
  struct s x = { .f = 3, .g = 4 };

This warning is included in -Wextra. To get other -Wextra warnings without
this one, use '-Wextra -Wno-missing-field-initializers'.

HTH,
--Eljay