On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:58:53AM -0400, S. Gilles wrote:
Thanks for tackling this.
> @@ -6858,6 +6858,9 @@
> /* 1 if this constructor is erroneous so far. */
> static int constructor_erroneous;
>
> +/* 1 if this constructor is the universal zero initializer { 0 } */
". */" at the end of the comment, please.
> @@ -7317,12 +7321,8 @@
> set_nonincremental_init (braced_init_obstack);
> }
>
> - if (implicit == 1 && warn_missing_braces && !missing_braces_mentioned)
> - {
> - missing_braces_mentioned = 1;
> - warning_init (input_location, OPT_Wmissing_braces,
> - "missing braces around initializer");
> - }
> + if (implicit == 1)
> + found_missing_braces = 1;
Wrong indentation, there should be only two spaces.
> + /* Warn when some structs are initialized with direct aggregation. */
> + if (!implicit && found_missing_braces && warn_missing_braces
> + && !constructor_zeroinit)
> + {
> + warning_init (input_location, OPT_Wmissing_braces,
> + "missing braces around initializer");
> + }
> +
Please use "loc" instead of input_location.
> @@ -8594,6 +8598,11 @@
> designator_depth = 0;
> designator_erroneous = 0;
>
> + if (!implicit && value.value && !integer_zerop (value.value))
> + {
> + constructor_zeroinit = 0;
> + }
> +
You can drop the braces here.
But the problem I see is that this patch treats even "{ 0, 0 }" as
a "universal zero initializer", thus we wouldn't warn on say:
/* -Wmissing-braces -Wmissing-field-initializers */
struct T { int a, b; };
struct U { int a, b; struct T t; };
void
f (void)
{
int a[2][2][2] = { 0, 0, 0 };
struct U u = { 0, 0 };
}
I'm not sure whether that is desirable.
Marek
