This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: New gcc 4.0.0 warnings seem spurious


On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@vinc17.org> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> | >  > But if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants, right?
> | >  > 
> | >  > The fact that they are not considered as constant expressions,
> | >  > is it due to the fact that the environment is allowed to modify
> | >  > them?
> | > 
> | > It's due to what the C standard says.  A const variable in C isn't a
> | > constant, it's just a read-only variable.
> | 
> | 1+1 isn't a constant either
> 
> It is an integer constant expression, and its evaluation yields a
> constant (see 6.6).  Can you explain why you believe that is false?

I never said that it was false. Could you please read messages
before replying?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]