On 05/10/2021 20.06, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > ----- On Oct 5, 2021, at 2:01 PM, Rasmus Villemoes linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> I would think that one could avoid that churn by saying >> >> typeof((p) + 0) >> >> instead of just "typeof(p)", to force the decay to a pointer. > > Also, AFAIU, the compiler wants to know the sizeof(p) in order to evaluate > (p + 0). Steven's goal is to hide the structure declaration, so that would > not work either. Gah, you're right. I was hoping the frontend would see that +0 could be optimized away and only affect the type of the expression, but it does give 'error: invalid use of undefined type ‘struct abc’'. Sorry for the noise. Rasmus
