https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108626
--- Comment #6 from Jiang An <de34 at live dot cn> ---
(In reply to Marat Radchenko from comment #5)
> So, does "String literals, and compound literals with const-qualified types,
> need not designate distinct objects." apply here or not? If not, how does
> the case where it applies look like?
I strongly believe that when compiling as C, the objects in your example are
allowed to be merged. But I'm not sure whether this is applicable to C++.
In C++ one may write:
constexpr char x = a[0]; // OK.
if constexpr (a == b) { // If the objects are merged then the following code is
in affect.
constexpr char y = b[0]; // Error! Because `b` is not usable in constant
expressions.
}
I'm afraid that it would be unreasonable for compiler to handle such confusing
case.
> https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/compound_literal explicitly says
> (though I do understand this is not a 100% reliable source):
>
> Compound literals of const-qualified character or wide character array types
> may share storage with string literals.
>
> ----
> (const char []){"abc"} == "abc" // might be 1 or 0, implementation-defined
> ----
>
> Comparison with string literals isn't actually implementation-defined but
> instead unspecified behavior, but the point here is that they think it is
> possible memory is shared.
I've corrected the comment on cppreference. Now it's saying "unspecified".
