https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61fb8963c22d91152a9c46a3512307bef3b3d7f7
commit r10-8109-g61fb8963c22d91152a9c46a3512307bef3b3d7f7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed:
_Atomic float x = 5;
void
bar (float y[(int) (x += 2)])
{
}
is accepted while
_Atomic float x = 5;
void
foo (void)
{
void bar (float y[(int) (x += 2)]) {}
}
ICEs. The problem is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Side-effects in the array sizes of variably modified parameters are valid
and occur on entry to the function. I don't think being a nested function
should make any difference there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
