From 0f8f1dee851c23bce19977b2531cf69b4da9f88f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marek Polacek Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 13:52:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] doc: Clarification for -Wmissing-field-initializers The manual is incorrect in saying that the option does not warn about designated initializers, which it does in C++. Whether the divergence in behavior is desirable is another thing, but let's at least make the manual match the reality. PR c/39589 PR c++/96868 gcc/ChangeLog: * doc/invoke.texi: Clarify that -Wmissing-field-initializers doesn't warn about designated initializers in C only. --- gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi index 6d08229ce403..0870f7aff936 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi @@ -9591,8 +9591,9 @@ struct s @{ int f, g, h; @}; struct s x = @{ 3, 4 @}; @end smallexample -This option does not warn about designated initializers, so the following -modification does not trigger a warning: +@c It's unclear if this behavior is desirable. See PR39589 and PR96868. +In C this option does not warn about designated initializers, so the +following modification does not trigger a warning: @smallexample struct s @{ int f, g, h; @}; -- 2.47.2