From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23464 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2007 17:30:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 23451 invoked by uid 48); 23 Nov 2007 17:30:40 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071123173040.23450.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/32122] indirect goto to an integer accepted In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "sjackman at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg02244.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from sjackman at gmail dot com 2007-11-23 17:30 ------- I've always used `goto *123;' on embedded targets as a feature to be able to jump to a constant address. This particularly useful feature should not be removed. Is a simple change of syntax being suggested, such as `goto *(void *)123;'? Dereferencing a void pointer looks strange to me, but I guess no stranger than dereferencing an integer. -- sjackman at gmail dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sjackman at gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32122