http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47557
--- Comment #2 from Argiris Kirtzidis 2011-02-01
17:00:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think the current behavior is correct.
Could you elaborate ? What is the actual benefit of padding T[1] ? Access to
elements of array-of-T is still un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47557
Summary: Effect of aligned attribute on arrays
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
--- Comment #3 from akyrtzi at gmail dot com 2008-10-08 09:19 ---
And some bit of C++ standard wisdom:
C++ 6.8p1: "To disambiguate, the whole statement might have to be examined to
determine if it is an expression-statement or a declaration"
And there's this example give
--- Comment #3 from akyrtzi at gmail dot com 2008-10-08 09:09 ---
Note that the same rule applies to the 'switch' statement too:
switch (int x = 1)
{
default:
int x = 2; // there should be an error because of redeclaration
}
--
akyrtzi at gmail dot com changed:
--- Comment #2 from akyrtzi at gmail dot com 2008-08-24 22:42 ---
I forgot to mention that both MSVC and Comeau compilers interpret
FuncType(a)(x,y)->z = 0;
as expression and compile the test program without errors.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37213
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: akyrtzi at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37213
