Michiel de Bondt wrote:
Using strings to show my point was not a good idea. You can add a field
"int number" to the struct and perform similar operations (with =
instead of strcpy).
But even with strings, gcc should give an error like: "strcpy(const
char*, const char*) does not exists". In case of a "typedef char
string100[100]", gcc behaves correctly by ringing alarm bells. So it
seems to be the . operator that behaves incorrectly.
You should distill a minimum and complete testcase that uses = to
demonstrate the bug. The example you gave does not assign to an r-value
at all, as near as I can tell. As Andrew points out, the array
reference will decay to a pointer, which is passed to strcpy. You may
want to confirm on comp.lang.c++ or with another C++ compiler that the
code is, in fact, invalid.
Thanks for looking into this. :)
