https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39589
Georg <georggcc at googlemail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |georggcc at googlemail dot com
--- Comment #8 from Georg <georggcc at googlemail dot com> ---
If it helps implementing this legitimate distinction between
use cases, i.e. default initialisation vs. software maintenance,
I'd be happy having to attach a type attribute. For example,
struct foo { int a; int b; }
__attribute__((explicit_initialization));
Or any better name of an attribute.
The attribute could tell the compiler to please use its
knowledge of missing field initialisers, and, less paradoxically,
to warn, actually, when -Wmissing-field-initializers is in effect.
Just as it does when there are no designator in the initialiser list.
For software maintenance this will be a boon.
By analogy, I'd like to illustrate this use case like this:
I don't want the compiler to be silent by force whenever
it notices a missing implementation of a member function/Obj-C
method/Ada prim op just because the programmer had given some other
of these a name---assuming the respective language were to allow
this at all.
