[Bug c/21794] GCC accepts invalid code

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-28 10:45 
---
c90-const-expr-2.c and c99-const-expr-2.c already contain assertions that
(void *)(void *)0 is not a null pointer constant; this just part of the known
constant expressions issues.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 456 ***

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21794

[Bug c/21794] GCC accepts invalid code

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com  2005-05-28 
02:08 ---
Subject: Re:  New: GCC accepts invalid code

On Sat, 28 May 2005, neil at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic -fsyntax-only
> 
> erroneously accepts the following:
> 
> void bar(void);
> 
> void (*baz(void))(void)  { return bar ? bar: (void *)(void *) 0; }

This just looks like a special case of bug 456 to me.



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21794