https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283
--- Comment #6 from Yann Droneaud <yann at droneaud dot fr> ---
Found this one on stack overflow[1], and I find it a bit embarrassing:
struct {
struct {
int a;
int b;
} c[1];
} d = {
.c[0].a = 1,
.c[0].b = 1,
};
Results in the following warning:
<source>:7:8: error: missing initializer for field 'b' of 'struct
<anonymous>' [-Werror=missing-field-initializers]
7 | .c[0].b = 1,
| ^
<source>:4:9: note: 'b' declared here
4 | int b;
| ^
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Compiler returned: 1
See https://godbolt.org/z/zGqM7C
GCC emits a warning about a field missing an initializer despite being
obviously explicitly initialized.
If the present but missing initialization is removed:
struct {
struct {
int a;
int b;
} c[1];
} d = {
.c[0].a = 1,
};
GCC complains, incorrectly, about a missing initializer, as described in
previous comments:
<source>:8:1: error: missing initializer for field 'b' of 'struct
<anonymous>' [-Werror=missing-field-initializers]
8 | };
| ^
<source>:4:9: note: 'b' declared here
4 | int b;
| ^
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Compiler returned: 1
See https://godbolt.org/z/8NRwo5
[1]
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22194935/wmissing-field-initializer-when-using-designated-initializers
