https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123737
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jason Liam from comment #2)
> Any way to fix this? Thanks
A work around is every once in a while use `(0,0)` instead of 0. or put
paresthesia around part of the subexpression.
Like:
```
(c130, // an array of 130 zeros
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0), 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,0;
```
If you use a macro for the zeros, you can do `(0,0)`.
This is the only time I have seen anyone overload the comma operator really.
This is part of the reason why this was not caught during development of GCC
15.
