https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Why do you think it is a bug?
>
> Because there were other bugs which were fixed where there was an
> inconsiste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Why do you think it is a bug?
Because there were other bugs which were fixed where there was an
inconsistency, PR 66618, and PR 71983 for an example. There are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song ---
OK, Andrew asked me to file it :)
I just wanted to fix glibc and run away from the GCC inconsistency.
I know that
https://www.iso-9899.info/n1570.html#6.6 p10 says
"An implementation may accept other forms o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why do you think it is a bug?
This is not valid C11 code, and as an extension gcc when optimizations enabled
in some cases will accept in constant expressions even something that it
doesn't have to.
With -pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source?
