On 10/21/2015 12:10 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
How about
&a.v[2].a
and
&a.v[2].b
I don't think either is valid.
typedef struct FA5_7 {
int i;
char a5_7 [5][7];
} FA5_7;
__builtin_offsetof (FA5_7, a5_7 [0][7]), // { dg-warning "index" }
__builtin_offsetof (FA5_7, a5_7 [1][7]), // { dg-warning "index" }
__builtin_offsetof (FA5_7, a5_7 [5][0]), // { dg-warning "index" }
__builtin_offsetof (FA5_7, a5_7 [5][7]), // { dg-warning "index" }
The last one is certainly invalid. The one before is arguably invalid as
well (in the unary '&' equivalent, &a5_7[5][0] which is equivalent to
a5_7[5] + 0, the questionable operation is implicit conversion of a5_7[5]
from array to pointer - an array expression gets converted to an
expression "that points to the initial element of the array object", but
there is no array object a5_7[5] here).
Martin, is this something you're working on, or should I have a go?
Bernd
