From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25819 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2016 14:52:54 -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 24921 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jun 2016 14:52:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=rejecting X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:52:42 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1bF0Z5-0004Sr-6h from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:52:39 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:52:37 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bF0Z1-0002M8-Qy; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:52:35 +0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:52:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Martin Sebor CC: Gcc Patch List Subject: Re: [PATCH] c/71552 - Confusing error for incorrect struct initialization In-Reply-To: <5765C17C.3040801@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <5765C17C.3040801@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg01424.txt.bz2 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. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com