--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 04:31
---
Leaving as P2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23172
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-20
21:51 ---
I am going to punt as the last example did not work in 2.95.3-4.0.0 also and
that is the only example
in this whole bug which is really valid C99.
--
What|Removed |Adde
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-20
21:47 ---
Another testcase:
int *f = &(int){0};
This one is valid C99 also.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23172
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-20
21:29 ---
I have a fix for this (really I am writting a fix).
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedT
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-20
21:27 ---
_Complex double i = (_Complex double){0.,1.0};
Also ICE but with a differnet error message:
t.cc:1: internal compiler error: in process_init_constructor, at
cp/typeck2.c:1041
Please submit a full bug report
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-20
21:09 ---
Hmm, this is not even valid C99, and we reject it in the C front-end with
"-std=c99 -pedantic-errors":
t.c:1: error: initializer element is not constant
Though we should not seg fault.
--
http://gcc.g
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-20
20:38 ---
int i = (int){1, 2} segfaults as well, and no longer gives an error.
I suspect it was the following patch:
2005-07-20 Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Make CONSTRUCTOR use VEC to store initiali
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-01
11:55 ---
Confirmed, this is one is a front-end bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFI
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Target Milestone|---
