On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 1:30 PM Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If I read the standard correctly (big 'if'), in:
> volatile int x;
> typeof(++x) y;
> 'y' should have the type 'volatile int' and GCC interpret it so.
That sounds extremely odd to me. I think it should have the same type
as "x += 1" or "x = x+1", no?
And what gcc does is clearly not indicative of anything, since gcc
gets the comma expression wrong, so..
clang seems to have a better track record, and clang drops qualifiers
on "typeof(++x)". Stupid test-case:
int *fn(volatile int p)
{
extern typeof(++p) x;
return &x;
}
results in no warnings with clang (but warns about dropped volatile with gcc).
Linus
