| Message ID | 20170519135847.40720-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/evaluate.c b/evaluate.c index f8ed10f13..ef4da2371 100644 --- a/evaluate.c +++ b/evaluate.c @@ -2501,10 +2501,6 @@ static void handle_list_initializer(struct expression *expr, ctype->ident ? ": " : "", get_type_name(struct_sym->type), show_ident(struct_sym->ident)); - if (jumped) { - warning(e->pos, "advancing past deep designator"); - jumped = 0; - } REPLACE_CURRENT_PTR(e, last); } else { next = check_designators(e, ctype);
This warning is issued in code like: struct s { union { int i; long l; } u; int b; }; static struct s s = { .u.i = 1, 2, }; in other words, it is issued when a 'deep' designated initializer is followed by a non-designated initializer. I wonder what's really the value of this warning. Is there really some confusion we would like to avoid? NB. I'm not sure if this situation is covered by the standard (status of 'deep' designated initializers is not very clear). NB. GCC accept this, without any option to warn about it. CC: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> --- evaluate.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)