From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129370 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2016 22:38:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 129361 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jun 2016 22:38:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-qk0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f173.google.com) (209.85.220.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:38:52 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id o76so59771355qke.0 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KIGN7bGo//cdYdi4GANChnZNFVQ+equy21UgqHgA9GE=; b=DWHcrQx6vlFV6y80aKcZJ8nG4hG7qbsEsixF0Bw67coMDj7dxDCo2iOA4/0Nuq10Q5 ltFyn+u8/oJe/sdIVL3GShavKOUi1qzAAB1wml0o7Et7Yz3C7HzNOOLigjGTgskx2H4t SFus+3oYe13ZVDWl2uXuKS4HPKJDBlK7arqdsDx9BXdKP9otFNJkSQBHmPqZXU0nDyI3 Czs+mxrrEs5fvaOCi2HZNAmsbCwUIuSpHnwDObodwjZYhx+RWMWWbyhJqfmQqf7S6XTm ayWUg5zUgbd7BwJo1+Tq9LoUGiACWZ2RTttnM+vQxRrZsrFr5nrSnzyTfgE+7y6TkDzy YsEw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLPI4eMjwXjNFBH7b9l6wGagjCGpI3Cbcfr4IuLlRzD5E6br2+BxOJlAhhlDUyDAQ== X-Received: by 10.55.185.67 with SMTP id j64mr20797061qkf.170.1467326330005; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.26] (97-124-166-240.hlrn.qwest.net. [97.124.166.240]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e41sm2823441qta.37.2016.06.30.15.38.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] c/71552 - Confusing error for incorrect struct initialization To: Joseph Myers References: <5765C17C.3040801@gmail.com> Cc: Gcc Patch List From: Martin Sebor Message-ID: <57759F77.1030700@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg02098.txt.bz2 On 06/20/2016 08:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > >> The attached patch slightly changes the order in which initializers >> are checked for type compatibility to issue the same error for static >> initializers of incompatible types as for automatic objects, rather >> than rejecting the former for their lack of constness first. > > OK, presuming the patch has passed the usual testing. Thanks. I committed it in r237829. The reporter wants to know if the patch can also be backported to 5 and or 6. Should I go ahead? Martin