void added a comment. In D124694#3486547 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694#3486547>, @void wrote:
> In D124694#3485585 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694#3485585>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> struct t { >> int a, b, c, d, e; >> } x = { .a = 2, 4, 5, 6 }; >> >> This situation seems like it should be an error, shouldn't it? The user >> specified one designated initializer (yay, that one is correct), but the >> rest are positional initializers and so there's no telling what they >> actually initialize due to field randomization. > > That is diagnosed as an error. The issue is that after randomization, the `a` > field is placed at the end of the structure. The initializer checker then > sees the `.a = 2` and says, "Ah! That's the one at the end of the structure. > Any non-designated initializers afterwards will be excess ones," which is > what happens. But that warning is completely mysterious to the end users who > isn't told that they can't have a non-designated initializer on a randomized > structure. Moving the diagnostic allows the correct warning to be emitted > instead of the "excess elements" one. `s/is placed/may be places/` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
