This appears to be fixed if you `return {c, 0}` to fully initialize the struct.
There are plenty of real reasons for liking or disliking C++ but your response reads like a knee-jerk response.
I used to run a compiler company (Cygnus). People were always complaining that the compiler was broken when the bug was in their code.
That being said we also got lots of real bug reports and sometimes you'd look at them and say "how the hell does anybody compile code when this happens?" Of course really those cases were indeed bad but only infrequently triggered.
But they are codebases like any other and code has bugs. I still find bugs every few months in various compilers. Usually they are already known.
And code quality bugs are lower priority than conformance (accuracy) bugs.
But the high (abstraction) level of C++ development, in particular modern C++ which is largely pointer-free, make is pretty easy to rapidly write code with a minimum of foot gunning.
I'm more concerned with the unpredictable performance of java or python. Others write excellent code in those languages without needing to worry about that, which is also great.
What you've written is just a different way of spelling the full initialization, which should not have a radical effect on the generated code.