From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29665 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2005 15:37:03 -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 29652 invoked by uid 48); 14 Jul 2005 15:37:01 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050714153701.29650.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "falk at debian dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050714131031.22485.mattias@virtutech.se> References: <20050714131031.22485.mattias@virtutech.se> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/22485] pointer +- integer is never NULL X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg01764.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-14 15:37 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > I'm failing to find anything in the C++ standard that suggests that the > following shall be undefined > > (reinterpret_cast(0) + 5) - 5 If (reinterpret_cast(0) + 5) - 5 is not undefined, then neither is reinterpret_cast(0) + 5. Then what is its result, by which paragraph in the standard? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22485