From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5064 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2002 15:06:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5025 invoked by uid 71); 3 Dec 2002 15:06:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021203150605.5024.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2 Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/8290; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gcc-bugs@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