On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 02:09:45PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > > It is pretty hard to work with double-indirect things, often have to > > make sure the two memory accesses are not to the same address, etc. > > Types will prevent that, typically, but in any case double indirect like that > is still fine, you just get the pointer in a roundabout way. It would be > different if the machine actually does a "keep following pointers until the > 'this is a pointer' flag is false" mode, which some old machines do.
How should that even be expressed in GCC? Heh. Segher
