Re: New gcc 4.0.0 warnings seem spurious

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@vinc17.org> writes:

| 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.

Ah, then what exactly is your point?

| Could you please read messages before replying?

I'm trying, I'm trying.  

-- Gaby