https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5) > Another testcase, derived from one attached to bug 65509: > > char s[] = "s"; > > #define SA(X) static_assert((X),#X); > SA((&s[0] + 0) != (&s[0] + 1)); > > here we aren't indirecting the addresses, so I think cxx_fold_indirect_ref > isn't the right place for the fix. Yeah. I think I'll have to massage the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR case in cxx_eval_constant_expression so we fold the &s[0] + 0 stuff even when we're not dereferencing the expr.
