From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7633 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2003 07:46:01 -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 7618 invoked by uid 71); 28 Jan 2003 07:46:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030128074601.7617.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant Reply-To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01572.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/9469; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: , , , Cc: Subject: Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:42:33 +0000 (GMT) On 27 Jan 2003 bangerth@dealii.org wrote: > Confirmed. This used to compile until 3.0, but fails with > 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. I must admit that I don't know exactly > whether this is legal code, but it looks like, and in this > case it is a regression It has never been valid C to use an expression of aggregate type as part of an initializer, only as a the whole initializer, though the broken old implementation of compound literals may have allowed this. I'll leave it up to Jakub to decide whether it makes any sense to allow this as another compatibility case of compound literals in gnu89 mode. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk