This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Semantics of CONSTRUCTOR tree nodes
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>What are the exact semantics of CONSTRUCTOR tree nodes meant to be? I
>think that they are not meant to be the same as C99 compound literals -
I don't know what 'C99 compound literals' are - but CONSTRUCTORs are
be encode a brace-initializer-lists in standard C.
A CONSTRUCTOR is an rvalue, not a variable. It has a type.
>and so compound literals ought to use a new tree node which wraps around a
>CONSTRUCTOR and provides the appropriately initialised object (an
>anonymous VAR_DECL initialised by the CONSTRUCTOR, probably) with
>appropriate storage duration required by C99, but some questions about the
That sounds wrong.
>1. Is it intended that multiple CONSTRUCTORs with identical contents can
>share the same memory?
The question is meaningless. CONSTRUCTORs do not have memory.
It is like asking if multiple PLUS_EXPRs can share the same memory.
>2. Is it undefined behavior if the memory occupied by a CONSTRUCTOR gets
>modified at runtime?
>3. What is the storage duration of memory occupied by a CONSTRUCTOR?
What is the storage duration of the memory occupied by integer 5?