From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16998 invoked by alias); 21 May 2005 18:10:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16984 invoked by uid 48); 21 May 2005 18:10:19 -0000 Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 18:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050521181019.16983.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050514140942.21568.rguenth@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050514140942.21568.rguenth@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/21568] [4.0/4.1 regression] Casts in folding *& omitted X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg02994.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2005-05-21 18:10 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > This is undefined, see the full discussion on the gcc list: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00073.html > > - out of curiosity, it's not clear that the discussion reached any > conclusion which enables GCC to disreguard the type semantics > as specifed by the program code. Where in the standard does it > specify that a type qualifier may be disreguarded if convenient? See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00085.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21568