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

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

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

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
 
 

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

[Kipp Cannon]

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

From: Kipp Cannon <kipp@sgl.crestech.ca>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
   nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals
 during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:14:36 -0500 (EST)

 On 3 Dec 2002 bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
 
 > Synopsis: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
 > 
 > State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
 > State-Changed-By: bangerth
 > State-Changed-When: Tue Dec  3 11:39:37 2002
 > State-Changed-Why:
 >     Given  Joseph's comments, this is a user error that just
 >     happened to compile before.
 
 Thanks for the update.
 
 							-Kipp
 
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8290
 > 
 

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

[bangerth]

Synopsis: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2

State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Tue Dec  3 11:39:37 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    Given  Joseph's comments, this is a user error that just
    happened to compile before.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8290

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

[Joseph S. Myers]

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

From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
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 19:30:08 +0000 (GMT)

 On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
 
 > > 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?
 
 Yes.
 
 -- 
 Joseph S. Myers
 jsm28@cam.ac.uk
 

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

[Joseph S. Myers]

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

From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
To: <bangerth@dealii.org>,  <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,  <kipp@sgl.crestech.ca>, 
     <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
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 00:38:46 +0000 (GMT)

 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.
 
 -- 
 Joseph S. Myers
 jsm28@cam.ac.uk
 

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

[bangerth]

Old Synopsis: Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
New Synopsis: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Mon Dec  2 13:21:29 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    Confirmed. Assuming the code is legal, it is a regression
    from 3.0, which compiled it fine. A simpler code is this:
    -----------------------------
    typedef struct {
        int a;
    } s;
    
    s w[2] = (s []) { { 1 }, { 2 } };
    
    int main(void)
    {
      s x[2] = (s []) { { 1 }, { 2 } };
      return(0);
    }
    -------------------------------

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8290