[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-10-01 Thread dcsommer at fb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 Daniel Sommermann dcsommer at fb dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcsommer at fb

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-10-01 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-09-11 Thread paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 --- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Thu Sep 11 18:08:24 2014 New Revision: 215186 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215186root=gccview=rev Log: 2014-09-11 Paolo Carlini

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-09-11 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-09-10 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-06-14 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-06-13 Thread D.Bahadir at GMX dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 --- Comment #3 from Deniz Bahadir D.Bahadir at GMX dot de --- Thanks for the comment. So, at least we aggree that the cases for addr2 and addr6 should not warn (in C++11) as it initializes all values. Possibly this holds true for addr9, too? I

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-06-13 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Deniz Bahadir from comment #3) Thanks for the comment. So, at least we aggree that the cases for addr2 and addr6 should not warn (in C++11) as it initializes all

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-06-13 Thread D.Bahadir at GMX dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 --- Comment #5 from Deniz Bahadir D.Bahadir at GMX dot de --- Thanks again. Then I need to appologize for misunderstanding the meaning of the warning-flag. Because of several internet-sources, like the one I cited, I always thought that the

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-06-12 Thread D.Bahadir at GMX dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 --- Comment #1 from Deniz Bahadir D.Bahadir at GMX dot de --- This does not only occur with GCC 4.9.0 but also with older ones like 4.7 and 4.8.

[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

2014-06-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Deniz Bahadir from comment #0) When compiling the following code (in C++11 mode) with -Wmissing-field-initializers then almost all attempts to initialize sockaddr_in