This is the mail system at host fx302.security-mail.net.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
<marc.poulh...@kalray.eu>: host zimbra2.kalray.eu[195.135.97.26] said: 550
5.1.1 <marc.poulh...@kalray.eu>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown
in virtual mailbox table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; fx302.security-mail.net
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 5BF793D3B166
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Arrival-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:04:08 +0200 (CEST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; marc.poulhies@kalray.eu
Original-Recipient: rfc822;marc.poulhies@kalray.eu
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: dns; zimbra2.kalray.eu
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 <marc.poulhies@kalray.eu>: Recipient address
rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table
--- Begin Message ---
On 8/10/21 7:48 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 07:17:54AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/9/21 6:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> This is not a documented GCC extension either, and it might even
>>> conflict with the existing void * extension (allowing arithmetic on it,
>>> by defining sizeof(void)). In either case it is not currently defined.
>>>
>> I'm not sure how you get to this, but all we're doing here is standard C.
> Arithmetic on void* is the GCC extension. sizeof(void) is 1 as GCC
> extension, instead of being undefined. Pointer arithmetic is only
> defined for arrays of the type being pointed to, and you cannot have an
> array of void. You can do this as GCC extension though, it behaves as
> if it was a char* instead.
>
>> x.c:
>>
>> char
>> foo (const void *x)
>> {
>> const char *y = (const char *) x;
>> return *y;
>> }
> And this behaves exactly the same if you do s/const void/void/ . The
> const qualifier is meaningless on things of type void, since you cannot
> have an lvalue of that type anyway. And all type qualifiers can be cast
> away (or cast into existence).
>
>> y.c:
>>
>> void
>> foo (const void *x, char c)
>> {
>> const char *y = (const char *) x;
>> *y = c;
>> }
>>
>> wschmidt@rain6p1:~/src$ gcc -c x.c
>> wschmidt@rain6p1:~/src$ gcc -c y.c
>> y.c: In function 'foo':
>> y.c:5:6: error: assignment of read-only location '*y'
>> *y = c;
>> ^
> Yes, *y is an lvalue. *x is not: *x is an error.
>
>
> It *is* allowed to have a "const void", but it means exactly the same as
> just "void" (you cannot assign to either!) And, they are compatible
> types, too, (they are the *same* type in fact!), so if you ever would
> treat them differently it would be mightily confusing :-)
The whole point is that this data type is only used for interfaces, as
shown in the example code. Nobody wants to define const void as
anything. The const serves only as a contract that the pointed-to
object, no matter what it is cast to, will not be modified.
I think you're over-thinking this. :-)
Bill
>
>
> Segher
To declare a filtering error, please use the following link :
https://www.security-mail.net/reporter.php?mid=15eb8.61127946.1743d.0&r=marc.poulhies%40kalray.eu&s=gcc-patches-bounces%2Bmarc.poulhies%3Dkalray.eu%40gcc.gnu.org&o=Re%3A+%5BPATCH+03%2F34%5D+rs6000%3A+Add+the+rest+of+the+%5Baltivec%5D+stanza+to+the+builtins+file&verdict=C&c=cf58a577e641bc42ccd2fb0be89ced1517e6257c
--- End Message ---
