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 EAAB83858439; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:49:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EAAB83858439
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1668732568;
	bh=7E7RTcBixw9Cf5Vqdq/lg1lU20NSCQvKft33MNYUjIM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=EoYV4bUoGYBsSxvsCMdCvh4SKzNgvsokISXYPI11HKiOVGkcp8gGVo1UJITSpWBlk
	 AFNuYwbH8+kzdDtlYU9AEeLFOe8w9BPec3YuZnS0eSbobrNviB9Pkb/uCkUY6J2alt
	 lTQhkjGr7TsU1BbtBntBvfWFw32MGJ3XdEuPPefs=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107735] Inconsistent error messages for std::array out of
 bound due to taking the address of one-past-the-end is valid
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:49:28 +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: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-107735-4-piIAFvT4ox@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107735-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107735-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107735

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > I wonder if this is because doing=20
> > constexpr const int *v1 =3D &array[3];
> >=20
> > is valid and well defined.
>=20
> It's not, but &array.data()[3] is.
>=20
> I agree that's probably the reason for the different diagnostics.

Interesting because both GCC and clang accept "constexpr const int *v1 =3D
&array[3];" though.=