> Sure. So far I don't see a problem though.
>
>
> > IE if we have something very funky like:
> >
> > static int c;
> > static int d;
> > static struct foo *a = &{&c, &d};
> >
> > (and if you look, andrew found a case where we are producing
> > &<constructor>, so this is a possibility, AFAICT)
>
> I disbelieve you can get this in C or C++. The fragment above
> is a syntax error. AFAIK, all of this is simple laziness in the
> Ada front end: generating &<constructor> is how things were done
> at the beginning of time, and it was easier to change this in the
> gimplifier than to modify the code that generated this directly.
Actually we do get it for C++. See PR 23171.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
