On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This patch improves missing initializers diagnostics. From:
>
> pr36446.c:13:3: warning: missing initializer [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
> .h = {1},
> ^
> pr36446.c:13:3: warning: (near initialization for ‘m0.h.b’)
> [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
> .h = {1},
> ^
>
> to:
>
> pr36446.c:13:3: warning: missing initializer for field ‘b’ of ‘struct
> h’ [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
> .h = {1},
> ^
> pr36446.c:3:7: note: ‘b’ declared here
> int b;
> ^
>
> Bootstrapped/regression tested.
>
> OK?
>
>
> 2012-04-19 Manuel López-Ibáñez <m...@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> * c-typeck.c (pop_init_level): Improve diagnostics.
> testsuite/
> * gcc.dg/m-un-2.c: Update.
> * gcc.dg/20011021-1.c: Update.
On Linux/x86, revision 186808 gave me:
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c (test for warnings, line 34)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c (test for warnings, line 41)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c (test for warnings, line 44)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c near init (test for warnings, line 27)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c near init (test for warnings, line 30)
FAIL: gcc.dg/m-un-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/m-un-2.c warning regression 2 (test for warnings, line 12)
FAIL: gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c (test for warnings, line 14)
FAIL: gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c (test for warnings, line 7)
FAIL: gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c (test for warnings, line 8)
FAIL: gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c (test for excess errors)
Revision 186806 is OK.
--
H.J.
