[llvm-bugs] [Bug 32156] New: Should = { 0 }; fire -Wmissing-braces in C99?

via llvm-bugs llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org
Mon Mar 6 13:23:13 PST 2017


            Bug ID: 32156
           Summary: Should = { 0 }; fire -Wmissing-braces in C99?
           Product: clang
           Version: 3.9
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P
         Component: Frontend
          Assignee: unassignedclangbugs at nondot.org
          Reporter: gpakosz at pempek.net
                CC: llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org


I noticed GCC and clang behave differently regarding -Wmissing-braces.

In C99, I'm wondering whether "= { 0 };" should warn when initializing a struct
defined with another struct as member and so on and so forth.

For example, https://godbolt.org/g/WLySA2
struct Bar
  int i;

struct Foo
  struct Bar bar;

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
  //struct Foo foo = { { 0 } };
  struct Foo foo = { 0 };

  return foo.bar.i;

Would struct Bar contain another struct Baz, then I would need to initialize
foo with 3 levels of nested braces. However, when initializing struct Foo, all
that matters is that it all gets initialized to 0. I don't believe I should
have to jump from header to header to figure out the number of nested braces I
need to use or that I should be brute-force adding levels of { } until the
compiler stops complaining.

Also, contrary to clang, it seems recent GCC versions stopped emitting
-Wmissing-braces when one writes = { 0 };

What do you think?

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20170306/b5ebf899/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-bugs mailing list