http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58531
--- Comment #4 from Guillaume <guillaume at eulerian dot com> --- Ok i understand. I took a sad brain shortcut assuming a single block declaration was generating an (only possible) increasing address for each compound. This was working on all previous gcc version i used (as far as i remember). That's why it is worrying me. I will correct my mistake and go punish myself ;) Thanks a lot.
