https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868
Pavel Sergeev <dzhioev at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dzhioev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from Pavel Sergeev <dzhioev at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #2)
> > Thanks: I was confused (as I think will many folks be).
>
> Approximately everybody is confused by -Wmissing-field-initializers which is
> why people probably shouldn't use it.
>
> It specifically says the **initializer** is missing, not that initialization
> is missing. But everybody thinks it's telling them the member is
> uninitialized.
>
> The manual is at least clear:
>
> > the following code causes such a warning, because "x.h" is implicitly zero
>
> Unfortunately it also says:
>
> > This option does not warn about designated initializers
>
> which might be true for C, but not C++. Should it be true for C++?
Do you see any reasons why it shouldn't?
