--- Comment #7 from jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2007-09-26 12:33 ---
Hm, I must apologize for argumenting about wrong point of this issue. Now I can
see why other sometimes say "think before you type" :)
The problem here is not whether applying const to "array of in
--- Comment #7 from jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2007-09-26 12:18 ---
> Neither C nor C++ have qualified array types, only arrays of qualified
> element types, but C++ has different rules from C regarding conversions
> involving qualifiers, which allow some conversions (
--- Comment #6 from jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2007-09-26 12:06 ---
> Neither C nor C++ have qualified array types, only arrays of qualified
> element types, but C++ has different rules from C regarding conversions
> involving qualifiers, which allow some conversions (
--- Comment #5 from jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2007-09-26 11:58 ---
Section 5.6.2.1, paragraph 2 says "E1[E2] is equivalent to *((E1)+(E2))". This
means if we have "typedef int THostAddr[8]" then the declaration "THostAddr
*Host" declares Host to be
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jozef dot behran at krs dot sk
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triple
--- Additional Comments From jozef dot behran at krs dot sk 2005-04-01
19:49 ---
> This is still valid code because the struct could be defined below still.
But if the struct is not defined anywhere (not even below its use), a warning
should
occur. If you send the first declarat
diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jozef dot behran at krs dot sk
CC: gcc-bugs at
