From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32593 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2003 16:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32578 invoked by uid 71); 7 Mar 2003 16:26:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030307162600.32577.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Nathan Sidwell Subject: Re: c++/9881: What is an address constant expression? Reply-To: Nathan Sidwell X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00356.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9881; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Nathan Sidwell To: Richard C Bilson Cc: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, pabuhr@uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: c++/9881: What is an address constant expression? Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:25:25 +0000 Richard C Bilson wrote: > This is why I believe that the old behavior of gcc was not in error, > regardless of how 5.19.4 is interpreted. and neither is the new behaviour. This is a missed optimization opportunity. My changes were to prevent a miscompilation on sparc and other strict aligned architectures. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC The voices in my head said this was stupid too nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org