Diego Novillo <dnovillo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 10:05:37AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > Yes, it does - well, it's implementation defined, but GCC has long > > chosen the natural interpretation. C99 6.3.2.3, paragraph 5. This is > > no different from that classic example, a pointer which escapes via > > printf/scanf. > > > OK, thanks. That settles it then. Just to close out this thread for the record, Andrew Pinski opened PR 23912 for this problem, and Diego checked in a patch for the 4.0 branch. So all should be well in 4.0.2. Ian
