This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/12615] [3.3 Regression] initializer syntax for POD structs gives parse error
- From: "jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 14 Oct 2003 21:38:22 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/12615] [3.3 Regression] initializer syntax for POD structs gives parse error
- References: <20031014193706.12615.bruno@clisp.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12615
------- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2003-10-14 21:38 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 Regression] initializer syntax for PAD
structs gives parse error
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
> object vorg = (object) { one_o: 0, allocstamp: 0 };
>
> while valid C99, is invalid C++.
There are two extensions to C++ in play here:
* Compound literals (documented as supported as an extension in C++).
* Designated initializers, documented as unimplemented in GNU C++. This
example in fact uses the obsolete GNU syntax rather than the standard C99
one. I'd like to deprecate that obsolete syntax properly - the obstacle
to doing so is deployed glibc headers that use the obsolete syntax in
macros on the basis that (some version of) G++ does in fact support
designated initializers, but only with the old and not the C99 syntax!