Am Fr., 24. Juli 2020 um 10:05 Uhr schrieb Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com>:
> It's still a candidate for an RFE. Martin Sebor has been working on > such warnings. I'm going to talk to him. It may also be useful for optimizations because the compiler may make assumptions. > >> It's also undefined when you pass the address of something that is not > >> the first element of an array of type double to foo1. (Undefined in the > >> sense that the standard does not say what happens in that case.) > > > > Yes, but a pointer to (an existing) double fulfills this requirement. > > I don't think that's how the standard defines “first element of an > array”. I suspect the intent was that it the pointer has to point to an > array of at least the indicated number of elements, but that's not what > the standard says. According to ISO C, "an array type describes a contiguously allocated nonempty set of objects with a particular member object type, called the element type". Thus, given double x; double *p = &x; the pointer p points to the first element of an array (of length 1). Maybe I have misunderstood you. Thanks, Marc
