Bug ID: 85419
           Summary: Incorrect determination of null pointer constant
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot
          Reporter: terra at gnome dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 43949
Preprocessed source code

Priority: low

#include <stdio.h>

main (int argc,char **argv)
  printf ("%p\n", 0 ? (void *restrict)0 : (int *)0);
  return 0;

As I read C99's section, (void *restrict)0 is *not* a null pointer

I am reading section 6.5.15 as saying the ?: is valid with type
void *restrict.

%p is valid for such a pointer.

gcc disagrees:

# gcc -std=c99 -pedantic  -Wall t.c
t.c: In function ‘main’:
t.c:6:3: warning: format ‘%p’ expects argument of type ‘void *’, but argument 2
has type ‘int *’ [-Wformat=]
   printf ("%p\n", 0 ? (void *restrict)0 : (int *)0);
I.e., it thinks (void *restrict)0 is a null pointer constant.  Hence ?:
becomes an int* and %p isn't valid for that in a pedantic sense.

Removing the "restrict" clearly makes the program invalid in a pedantic
sense.  I.e., Section 6.7.3 #7 is wrong.

Details: stock OpenSuSE 42.3

Reply via email to