C99 structure initialization in gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.3.1

[Kevin P. Fleming]

I've got an enum and a structure:

enum option_type {
O_STRING,
O_BOOL,
O_NUMBER
};

struct option_s {
char *name;
enum option_type type;
char *value;
char *def_value;
};

I want to define and initialize an instance of this structure:

static struct option_s foo_option = {
.name = "foo",
.type = O_STRING,
.def_value = "default"
};

With gcc-3.3.1, this works fine. With gcc-2.95.3, it complains about a
"missing initializer for .value". However, I know that the Linux kernel
uses this type of structure initialization, and it compiles OK with
gcc-2.95.3. Any ideas what's up here? I don't think this is actually a
syntax error on my part...

 

[Ben Pfaff]

With gcc-3.3.1, this works fine. With gcc-2.95.3, it complains about a
"missing initializer for .value". However, I know that the Linux
kernel uses this type of structure initialization, and it compiles OK
with gcc-2.95.3. Any ideas what's up here? I don't think this is
actually a syntax error on my part...

You'd be better off asking about this in a GCC-related newsgroup.
The C standard doesn't say anything, either way, about warnings
in this case (or in any case), and we don't discuss
compiler-specific issues here.

 

[Kevin P. Fleming]

You'd be better off asking about this in a GCC-related newsgroup.
The C standard doesn't say anything, either way, about warnings
in this case (or in any case), and we don't discuss
compiler-specific issues here.

OK, will do.