> I really really don't see why anyone would think that those '...' bring
> any additional information. Since Rainer has changed this, I see zero
> point in changing it back.
Yet doing it revealed an oversight in the first patch...
> It wasn't overlooked, there was a bug that I've fixed already which caused
> missing warnings.
Nope, see this hunk in the first patch:
@@ -4271,6 +4271,8 @@ convert (tree type, tree expr)
return expr;
}
+ /* fall through */
+
case CONSTRUCTOR:
/* If we are converting a CONSTRUCTOR to a mere type variant, or to
another padding type around the same type, just make a new one in
It's plain wrong, it should have been a break instead, but this was overlooked
by everyone because of the bunch of false positives.
--
Eric Botcazou
