[Bug c/63480] -Wmissing-field-initializers should not warn about intentionally empty initializers (or that should be a separate option)

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63480

--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The C warning is also nicer than the C++ one because it says where the field is
declared. It also only mentions one missing field per declaration, whereas the
C++ warning mentions all, which is terribly noisy and repetitive.