https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
The ICE is gone in GCC 8+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'd say for C it's valid to reject &a.s[-1] and &a.s[__PTRDIFF_MAX__] in
static initializers, because there is no guarantee that such addresses are
valid values of the pointer type (only po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I recall discussion years back that concluded the
int *p = &a.s[-1];
case was well formed (there being no access specifier between the two fields).
Of course the validity of the argument may have changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Related to PR82872?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
