From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 9AB6A385842A; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:05:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9AB6A385842A
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/102502] C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in
 -O0 while allows it in higher -O
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:05:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102502-4-ErOQEmYhf2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102502-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102502-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:05:04 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102502

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Why do you think it is a bug?
>=20
> Because there were other bugs which were fixed where there was an
> inconsistency, PR 66618, and PR 71983 for an example. There are others.
>=20
> Oh there is an inconsistency when the _Static_assert is not in a function=
 vs
> inside a function.
> Take:
> static const int allocation_size =3D 32768;
> _Static_assert (allocation_size, "");
> void f(void) { _Static_assert(allocation_size, ""); }
>=20
> The assert inside the function is accepted at -O1 but reject at -O0 while
> the one outside is always rejected.

But it is an intentional decision, to match the previous behavior in that a=
rea
plus handle what was needed.=