public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
@ 2002-12-03 11:36 Joseph S. Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2002-12-03 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
@ 2002-12-04 17:16 Kipp Cannon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kipp Cannon @ 2002-12-04 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
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
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
@ 2002-12-03 11:39 bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: bangerth @ 2002-12-03 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs, gcc-prs, kipp, nobody
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
@ 2002-12-03 7:06 Wolfgang Bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2002-12-03 7:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
@ 2002-12-02 16:46 Joseph S. Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2002-12-02 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2
@ 2002-12-02 13:21 bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: bangerth @ 2002-12-02 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs, gcc-prs, kipp, nobody
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-12-05 1:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-12-03 11:36 c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2 Joseph S. Myers
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-04 17:16 Kipp Cannon
2002-12-03 11:39 bangerth
2002-12-03 7:06 Wolfgang Bangerth
2002-12-02 16:46 Joseph S. Myers
2002-12-02 13:21 bangerth
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).