Re: [PATCH] doc: Clarification for -Wmissing-field-initializers

[Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 7:57 PM Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> The manual is incorrect in saying that the option does not warn
> about designated initializers, which it does in C++.  Whether the
> divergence in behavior is desirable is another thing, but let's
> at least make the manual match the reality.

OK.

>         PR c/39589
>         PR c++/96868
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
>         * doc/invoke.texi: Clarify that -Wmissing-field-initializers doesn't
>         warn about designated initializers in C only.
> ---
>  gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> index 6d08229ce40..0870f7aff93 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> @@ -9591,8 +9591,9 @@ struct s @{ int f, g, h; @};
>  struct s x = @{ 3, 4 @};
>  @end smallexample
>
> -This option does not warn about designated initializers, so the following
> -modification does not trigger a warning:
> +@c It's unclear if this behavior is desirable.  See PR39589 and PR96868.
> +In C this option does not warn about designated initializers, so the
> +following modification does not trigger a warning:
>
>  @smallexample
>  struct s @{ int f, g, h; @};
>
> base-commit: 1379ae33e05c28d705f3c69a3f6c774bf6e83136
> --
> 2.40.1
>