Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 10:16:36 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Noam Rotem <nrotem AT johnbryce DOT co DOT il>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: The warning <-- Solved. Thank you 
In-Reply-To: <Chameleon.971229204813.nrotem@netvision.netvision>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971230101531.577F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Noam Rotem wrote:

> is there ANY possibility that someone will write 
> this wrong code deliberately? If so, it should be a legal 
> syntax, accompanied with a general warning for those who 
> wrote it by mistake. But, if it is NEVER a correct syntax, 
> and in no case it should be written, then let it be an error. 

There's a lot of cases where incomplete and/or excess initializations
are used, especially when they are produced by complex macros.  I
don't know whether this particular case can be used for a purpose; I
always use -Wall in my work.

You might consider posting this question to the gnu.gcc.bug news group
(or write to its e-mail gateway, bug-gcc AT gnu DOT org), where the GCC
maintainers will have a definitive answer for you.