http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-05-29
09:05:51 UTC ---
Oops, sorry, I think at some point I wondered if something was in order but
then forgot. If you can tell me the right syntax, I can add it, must be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #23 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-29
09:22:05 UTC ---
It is explained here
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Option-properties.html#Option-properties
A patch like the following should work (plus removing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-05-29
09:41:01 UTC ---
Thanks. I'm going to test the patchlet momentarily, I think it qualifies as
obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #19 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-28 17:42:34 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 28 17:42:29 2012
New Revision: 187937
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187937
Log:
/c-family
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
baffo32 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||baffo32 at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Matti Rintala bitti at iki dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bitti at iki dot fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-17
11:33:48 UTC ---
GCC allows it too, otherwise it would be an error not a warning.
But no, there hasn't been any progress I know of, the warning is still given
for std::array
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-12-17
12:22:50 UTC ---
I'm sorry I don't mean to wrk on this over the next weeks, maybe sombody will
ne interested in picking my patch in this thread and completing it (both
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-21 16:50 ---
Looking into it: I mean to investigate whether a relaxed warning per Comment #9
is implementable in a decently clean way.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:44
---
*** Bug 27015 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2005-12-06 13:07 ---
I've often found this warning to be a nuisance, because it's correct and
well-defined to omit some braces from the initializer.
There are many cases where the warning is useful, e.g. with aggregates that
have
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 05:04 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The following code:
struct S
{ int x[3]; };
void f()
{ S s = {1,2,3};}
With -Wmissing-braces (which is implied by -Wall, among others) gives:
warning: missing braces around
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 14:52 ---
I don't see why the warning is not useful at all, in fact I rather have the C++
standard fix their wording of TR1's array.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #2 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-11-28 15:17 ---
Thats an option too, but I thought I'd see about gcc's opinion first, as I
expected a much faster reply than I would get from the C++ steering committee
:)
I find the warning helpful for constructs like:
struct S {
--- Comment #3 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-11-28 16:15
---
Subject: Re: Warning missing braces around initializer causing problems with
tr1::array
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I don't see why the warning is not useful at all, in fact I
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-11-28 16:18
---
Subject: Re: New: Warning missing braces around initializer causing
problems with tr1::array
chris at bubblescope dot net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| The following code:
|
| struct S
| { int x[3]; };
|
|
--- Comment #5 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-11-28 16:28 ---
I'll make a report. Don't worry, I'm clear on the difference between tr1::array
and a C array, I just wanted to check that we agree this should produce a
warning (in which case I will go through the tr1::array
--- Comment #6 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-11-28 16:33 ---
Actually, is a report really approriate? Writing arrayint,3 = {1,2,3} is
perfectly valid C++, just warned about with -Wmissing-braces
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-11-28 18:46
---
Subject: Re: Warning missing braces around initializer causing problems with
tr1::array
chris at bubblescope dot net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Actually, is a report really approriate? Writing arrayint,3 =
26 matches
Mail list logo
