Re: calc.at workaround for current test failures

[Paul Eggert]

Frank Heckenbach <address@hidden> writes:

> is the above structure copying or an initializer?

The former.  An initializer would have looked like this:

    YYSTYPE yylval = { first component, second component };

This sort of aggregate initializer was indeed rejected by PCC.


> Anyway, is there a problem with making that change?

I'd rather not make a change because GCC has an inaccurate warning.
We should fix GCC's warnings instead.

I'll CC: this messaage to Kaveh R. Ghazi, since he's the one who made
that change to GCC (logged in
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-07/msg00267.html>).

Kaveh, here's some context:

http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2003-07/msg00013.html

I am worried that GCC is diagnosing more than it should.  Did you
check whether traditional C rejected "struct s a = b;"?  I know that
it rejected "struct s a = { x, y};" but I don't recall that it
rejected "struct s a = b;".  Nobody in the Bison group has an old PCC
compiler to test with, so we can't verify this ourselves.