https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This is probably a duplicate of other bugs for cases that are not required
in the standard to be constant expressions but are permitted as additional
implementation-defined kinds of constan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
-pedantic-errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820
--- Comment #3 from tangyixuan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> does adding -pedantic help?
Thanks for your reply.
When I add -padantic, gcc-trunk reports warning :
2:45: warning：initialization of ‘volatile int * volatile* const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
My bet is that a is being treated as a "NULL Pointer cosntant"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
does adding -pedantic help?
