[llvm-bugs] [Bug 43231] New: -Wmissing-field-initializers warning missing for field designators
via llvm-bugs
llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org
Thu Sep 5 16:13:22 PDT 2019
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43231
Bug ID: 43231
Summary: -Wmissing-field-initializers warning missing for field
designators
Product: clang
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: C++
Assignee: unassignedclangbugs at nondot.org
Reporter: leonardchan at google.com
CC: blitzrakete at gmail.com, dgregor at apple.com,
erik.pilkington at gmail.com, llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org,
richard-llvm at metafoo.co.uk
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.
--
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/20190905/4cc81f00/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-bugs
mailing list