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

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

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

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |diagnostic
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-06-14
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Deniz Bahadir from comment #5)
> Because of several internet-sources, like the one I cited, I always thought
> that the cases of addr3 and addr7 were the prefered way of explicitely
> forcing zero-initialization of all struct members (especially if the number
> of struct-members are subject to change in the future).

That's the preferred way in C, where at least one initializer is needed, but
not in C++.

> If I understand you correctly, a better/cleaner way which achieves the exact
> same is using the cases of addr2 and addr6.

Yes.

> Then I would rephrase my original statement and suggest that no warning will
> be issued for cases of addr2, addr6 and addr9.

I agree with that suggestion.