* [PATCH] doc: Clarification for -Wmissing-field-initializers
@ 2023-06-08 17:57 Marek Polacek
2023-06-09 9:04 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2023-06-08 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GCC Patches
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.
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] doc: Clarification for -Wmissing-field-initializers
2023-06-08 17:57 [PATCH] doc: Clarification for -Wmissing-field-initializers Marek Polacek
@ 2023-06-09 9:04 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2023-06-09 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches
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
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-06-09 9:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-06-08 17:57 [PATCH] doc: Clarification for -Wmissing-field-initializers Marek Polacek
2023-06-09 9:04 ` Richard Biener
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).