From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7082 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2002 19:36:06 -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 7041 invoked by uid 71); 3 Dec 2002 19:36:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021203193604.7036.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: c/8290: [3.2/3.3 regression] Initialization with compound literals during declaration fails with gcc 3.2 Reply-To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/8290; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Wolfgang Bangerth 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 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