Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix issue 17073 - Do not ignore the explicit initializers #6427

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2017
Merged

Fix issue 17073 - Do not ignore the explicit initializers #6427

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2017

Conversation

LemonBoy
Copy link
Contributor

We don't really care about the _init being void-initialized when the
user has supplied an explicit value for a given field of the aggregate.

And yes, the check is ugly, suggestions are welcome.

@dlang-bot
Copy link
Contributor

dlang-bot commented Jan 10, 2017

Fix Bugzilla Description
17073 [Reg 2.071.0] Priority clash with void default initialization of struct fields

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
struct S0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably should be named test17073.d.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since the test case is limited to this file I don't think the name really matters

@MartinNowak MartinNowak added the Severity:Regression PRs that fix regressions label Jan 13, 2017
@MartinNowak MartinNowak changed the base branch from master to stable January 13, 2017 12:41
We don't really care about the _init being void-initialized when the
user has supplied an explicit value for a given field of the aggregate.
@MartinNowak
Copy link
Member

Rebased onto stable b/c it's a bugfix (in this case even a regression fix). Fixes should almost always go into stable unless they are risky.

@MartinNowak
Copy link
Member

Auto-merge toggled on

@dlang-bot dlang-bot merged commit ac7efd9 into dlang:stable Jan 13, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants