From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29085 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2009 14:05:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 28950 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2009 14:05:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx20.gnu.org (HELO mx20.gnu.org) (199.232.41.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:05:05 +0000 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MbxOx-0007QH-0J for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:05:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 29651 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2009 14:05:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Aug 2009 14:05:00 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MbxOt-0003HN-Gj for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:04:59 +0000 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:40:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: (int *const) function parameter In-Reply-To: <4A8562B2.7020608@free.fr> Message-ID: References: <4A8562B2.7020608@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Detected-Operating-System: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Marc Mason wrote: > Hello, > > The following code is rejected by one compiler, while it is accepted by gcc > without any warning. Several people in comp.lang.c seem to think that it is a > bug in the first compiler which should ***not*** reject the program. > > Message-ID: > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/2858a1c9ccdcd741 > > I'd like to ask what you think. Bugs in other compilers are offtopic for this list. The relevant wording from 6.7.5.3#15 has already been quoted in that discussion. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com