| commit | 0f8f1dee851c23bce19977b2531cf69b4da9f88f | |
| author | Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> | |
| Thu, 8 Jun 2023 17:52:11 +0000 (8 13:52 -0400) | ||
| committer | Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> | |
| Fri, 9 Jun 2023 14:22:42 +0000 (9 10:22 -0400) | ||
| tree | 63c1bb8f6ae32770eb60ad9b9c6e669274741e0f | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 55fcaa9a8bd9c8ce97ca929fc902c88cf92786a0 | commitdiff |
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.
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 | diffblobblamehistory |