Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2

[Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>]

The following reply was made to PR c/8290; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <kipp@sgl.crestech.ca>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals
 during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:05:17 -0600 (CST)

 On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
 
 > On 2 Dec 2002 bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
 > 
 > >     Confirmed. Assuming the code is legal, it is a regression
 > >     from 3.0, which compiled it fine. A simpler code is this:
 > 
 > This is deliberate, and the subject of previous mistaken PRs.  Compound
 > literals are, in C99, unnamed variables, not constant expressions that can
 > be used in initializers, and allowing them in initializers is not
 > consistent with the C language and this C99 concept.  There is a special
 > allowance for the old GNU "constructor expressions", which used the same
 > syntax but had different semantics in this area, in gnu89 mode, but not
 > gnu99.
 
 So, am I right that this report should be closed as well?
 
 Thanks
   Wolfgang
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:           bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth