From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 130010 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2016 21:55:42 -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 129993 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jul 2016 21:55:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=71552 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 21:55:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1536680E4A; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 21:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-32.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.116.32]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u66LtcL0018140; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] c/71552 - Confusing error for incorrect struct initialization To: Martin Sebor , Joseph Myers References: <5765C17C.3040801@gmail.com> <57759F77.1030700@gmail.com> Cc: Gcc Patch List From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <8eeb090d-cfb5-736d-c628-597a619128f6@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 21:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57759F77.1030700@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-07/txt/msg00276.txt.bz2 On 06/30/2016 04:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > 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? My inclination would be no -- it's not a regression or incorrect code generation. jeff