> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:50:34AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > >>/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20140714/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C:5:1: > > >> error: non-constant condition for static assertion > > >>/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20140714/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C:5:1: > > >> error: '(f != 0u)' is not a constant expression > > > > > >Ah, sorry, missed this one. I think the error is correct (based on > > >earlier discussion we can > > >not really expect addresses of symbols to be non-NULL), so I would just > > >update the testcase? > > > > Hmm. I think the C++ standard says this is constant, and of course whether > > an expression is constant is more significant in C++ because of templates > > and constexpr. clang doesn't give this error, EDG does. > > > > For C++, my inclination would be to say that if a symbol is declared weak, > > it needs to be declared weak before the first use, just like inline > > functions. > > I'd say that even for C we should require that, and thus for > non-weak symbols expect they are non-NULL, unless > -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks tells us not to.
OK, I suppose we can't go without bit of code duplication here (at parsing time and with symtab built). Will prepare patch for this. Honza > Jakub
