This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
c/1625: _Bool initializers bug
- To: gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: c/1625: _Bool initializers bug
- From: Joseph Myers <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:37:15 +0000
- Cc: jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
>Number: 1625
>Category: c
>Synopsis: _Bool initializers bug
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: high
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: rejects-legal
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Thu Jan 11 17:46:01 PST 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Joseph S. Myers
>Release: 2.97 20010111 (experimental)
>Organization:
none
>Environment:
System: Linux decomino 2.2.18 #1 Sun Jan 7 21:04:55 UTC 2001 i686 unknown
Architecture: i686
host: i686-pc-linux-gnu
build: i686-pc-linux-gnu
target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
configured with: ../gcc-cvs/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/snapshot --disable-shared --enable-threads=posix --with-system-zlib
>Description:
This is a PR to track a problem previously reported to gcc-patches
(with an incorrect patch).
Initializers for _Bool values don't work properly. When <stdbool.h>
is used, this is a regression from 2.95.2.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-12/msg01384.html>.
>How-To-Repeat:
As in that message:
#include <stdbool.h>
struct { int x; bool y; } foo = { 0, false};
t.c:2: invalid initializer
t.c:2: (near initialization for `foo.y')
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: