From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15602 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2003 16:06:01 -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 15528 invoked by uid 71); 28 Jan 2003 16:06:00 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030128160600.15525.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01600.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/9469; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: akpm@digeo.com, Subject: Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:04:53 -0600 (CST) On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > 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. Thanks for clarifying this. Did you notify Jakub of this report? He's not on the CC:-list. W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/