This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [C] improve missing initializers diagnostics


On 25 April 2012 16:46, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> <lopezibanez@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 ?<manu@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.

Somehow I committed a broken version of the patch. It should have been this:


--- gcc/c-typeck.c      (revision 186821)
+++ gcc/c-typeck.c      (working copy)
@@ -7063,11 +7063,11 @@ pop_init_level (int implicit, struct obs
            if (warning_at (input_location, OPT_Wmissing_field_initializers,
                            "missing initializer for field %qD of %qT",
                            constructor_unfilled_fields,
                            constructor_type))
              inform (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (constructor_unfilled_fields),
-                     "%qT declared here", constructor_unfilled_fields);
+                     "%qD declared here", constructor_unfilled_fields);
          }
     }


I'll commit as soon as it finishes bootstrapping+testing.

Sorry for the mistake,

Manuel.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]