Re: [PATCH] c++: -Wmissing-field-initializers and empty class [PR110064]

2023-07-19 Thread Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 03:36:49PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 7/19/23 15:20, Marek Polacek wrote: > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk? > > OK. We might also improve the diagnostic for base classes, perhaps by > teaching dump_simple_decl about DECL_FIELD_IS_BASE?

Re: [PATCH] c++: -Wmissing-field-initializers and empty class [PR110064]

2023-07-19 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 7/19/23 15:20, Marek Polacek wrote: Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk? OK. We might also improve the diagnostic for base classes, perhaps by teaching dump_simple_decl about DECL_FIELD_IS_BASE? -- >8 -- Let's suppress -Wmissing-field-initializers for empty clas

[PATCH] c++: -Wmissing-field-initializers and empty class [PR110064]

2023-07-19 Thread Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk? -- >8 -- Let's suppress -Wmissing-field-initializers for empty classes. Here I don't think I need the usual COMPLETE_TYPE_P/dependent_type_p checks. PR c++/110064 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * typeck2.cc (process_init_construc