------- Comment #40 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-11 22:48 ------- (In reply to comment #39) > (In reply to comment #37) > > Btw, 6.5.6/7 "For the purposes of these operators, a pointer to an object > > that > > is > > not an element of an array behaves the same as a pointer to the first > > element > > of an array of length one with the type of the object as its element type." > > No problem, as long as it doesn't make a copy.
Why do you think GCC makes it the address of a copy? > I clearly stated this, and > explained with C99, that even 1-entry arrays can be navigated beyond the > boundaries. I thoroughly explained the arithmetic. Where did you read that > 1-entry arrays can be copied to a different location when someone requests the > address operator? You are wrong here. The next paragraph, 6.5.6/8, explains that, "... otherwise the behavior is undefined. If the result points one past the last element of the array object, it shall not be used as the operator of a unary * operator that is evaluated.". Where I point you to 6.5.3.2/3 if you now claim that x[2] isn't invoking the unary * operator. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45249
