On 3/6/20 5:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 16:17, Chris Hall <gcc@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> FWIW: clang gets this right, and where the Standard says a parameter >> must be an _Atomic(foo_t)* [for a standard atomic_xxx()], clang rejects >> foo_t* arguments. > > It's not clear to me that C actually requires it to be rejected, or if > it's just undefined (in which case GCC's decision to accept it and do > the obvious thing is OK). Except in pedantic mode. I remember there was a move to actually permit this in C++: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4013.html This seems obviously right to me... -- Andrew Haley (he/him) Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> https://keybase.io/andrewhaley EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
