https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #38 from Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b at web dot de> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #34) > (In reply to Goswin von Brederlow from comment #29) > > There is no garantee in the C standard that '(type *)CONSTANT' will actually > > point to the hardware address 'CONSTANT'. It's just how gcc happens to do it > > in most cases. So no, your code is not fine. It is fragile. It relies on > > implementation details of gcc. But lets not argue about that. > > Actually, lets. It relies on guaranteed behaviour of GCC: > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Arrays-and-pointers-implementation.html > That's not going to change, and neither is the fact that the Linux kernel > depends on implementation-defined properties of GCC (where > "implementation-defined" is used in the formal sense, not "just an > implementation detail that might change tomorrow"). Thank you for agreeing with me that "It relies on implementation details of gcc". That's exactly what I said.
