[Bug c++/61489] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers.

["D.Bahadir at GMX dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61489

--- Comment #3 from Deniz Bahadir <D.Bahadir at GMX dot de> ---
Thanks for the comment.

So, at least we aggree that the cases for addr2 and addr6 should not warn (in
C++11) as it initializes all values. Possibly this holds true for addr9, too?

I always thought that the cases for addr3 and addr7 (and maybe also addr4 and
addr8) should initialize the entire struct with zeros. (This is for example
mentioned in that explanation:
http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/article.php/c19081/C-2011-Uniform-Initialization.htm)
By a quick look through the C++11 standard I was not able to find the section
which states that.
However, I found something similar in section "8.5.1 Aggregates", paragraph 7:

"If there are fewer initializer-clauses in the list than there are members in
the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be initialized
from an empty initializer list (8.5.4). [ Example:
struct S { int a; const char* b; int c; };
S ss = { 1, "asdf" };
initializes ss.a with 1, ss.b with "asdf", and ss.c with the value of an
expression of the form int(), that is, 0. âend example ]"

So, I am unsure if the compiler should warn about that or not.

Could maybe someone clarify if the statement from the link above about the
cases addr3 and addr7 is correct?