https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70911
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root at openwall dot com> ---
I think it's misleading. IMHO "overwritten" would describe the situation
when the first initializer is evaluated, the resulting value is written
to the field but then the second initializer overwrites the first value
with its own.
This impression is wrong even without side effects (i.g., for "warning:
initialized field overwritten [-Woverride-init]") because it implies
that this declaration:
struct { int x, y; } s = { .x = 1, .y = s.x, .x = 2 };
will set s.y to 1 while with gcc it will set it to 2.
The problem is worse with side effects because "overwritten" implies
that a value is overwritten but the side effects are occurred while with
gcc they didn't occur.
Hm, probably a noun is more important here than a verb. Field is
overwritten but initializer is overridden. And the warning is really
about initializer.
