<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.llvm.org/">
</head>
<body><table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>Bug ID</th>
<td><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - -Wmissing-field-initializers warning missing for field designators"
href="https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43231">43231</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Summary</th>
<td>-Wmissing-field-initializers warning missing for field designators
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Product</th>
<td>clang
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Version</th>
<td>unspecified
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Hardware</th>
<td>PC
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>OS</th>
<td>All
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Status</th>
<td>NEW
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Severity</th>
<td>normal
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Priority</th>
<td>P
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Component</th>
<td>C++
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Assignee</th>
<td>unassignedclangbugs@nondot.org
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Reporter</th>
<td>leonardchan@google.com
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>CC</th>
<td>blitzrakete@gmail.com, dgregor@apple.com, erik.pilkington@gmail.com, llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org, richard-llvm@metafoo.co.uk
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<pre>Given the following code
```
// ~/misc/test.cpp
struct foo {
int x;
int y;
};
void func() {
struct foo f = { 11 };
(void) f;
}
```
And compiling with `bin/clang++ ~/misc/test.cpp -c
-Wmissing-field-initializers`, we get the missing field initializers warning.
```
$ bin/clang++ ~/misc/test.cpp -c -Wmissing-field-initializers
/usr/local/google/home/leonardchan/misc/test.cpp:7:23: warning: missing field
'y' initializer [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
struct foo f = { 11 };
^
1 warning generated.
```
But if we instead initialize `f` with `{ .x = 11 }`, we get no warning. In both
cases, y is still uninitialized but we only get the warning for the first case.
I think we should emit this diagnostic in both cases.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>