On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:00:40PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > That's ugly and will for sure defeat warning / access code
> > when we access this as char[], no? I mean, we could
> > as well use 'int str[1];' here?
>
> Well, we always get char pointer via macro that is IMO OK, but I am also
> not very much in love with this.
Do we treat signed char [...]; as typeless storage too, or just
what the C++ standard requires (i.e. char, unsigned char and std::byte
where the last one is enum type with unsigned char underlying type)?
Jakub
