Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant

Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant

[Joseph S. Myers]

The following reply was made to PR c/9469; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly)
 not constant
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:58:23 +0000 (GMT)

 On 28 Jan 2003, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
 
 >  Thanks for clarifying this. Did you notify Jakub of this report? He's not 
 >  on the CC:-list.
 
 I presume that maintainers read the main mailing lists for anything
 relevant to their areas.  I consider him to be the expert on all the
 initializer handling code.
 
 -- 
 Joseph S. Myers
 jsm28@cam.ac.uk
 

Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c/9469; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly)
 not constant
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:16:22 -0600 (CST)

 > >  Thanks for clarifying this. Did you notify Jakub of this report? He's not 
 > >  on the CC:-list.
 > 
 > I presume that maintainers read the main mailing lists for anything
 > relevant to their areas.
 
 :-) My confidence in this statement is not so high any more, at least not 
 with respect to various port maintainers :-) I'll give him a ping on this 
 report, just to be sure.
 
 Thanks
   Wolfgang
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c/9469; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: akpm@digeo.com, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
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/
 
 

Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant

[Joseph S. Myers]

The following reply was made to PR c/9469; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
To: <bangerth@dealii.org>,  <akpm@digeo.com>,  <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, 
     <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
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
 

Re: c/9469: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant

[bangerth]

Old Synopsis: gcc-3.2 wont' compile a particular initializer
New Synopsis: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] initializer element is (allegedly) not constant

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Mon Jan 27 23:52:10 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    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

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9469