https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86102
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
Hi Jonathan
I can see what you mean, it doesn't make sense to add more info now I see.
Thank you for closing this request as invalid.
Jonny
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86102
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> There is no benefit from displaying 'value' '"test"' or 'str' ?
Right. In this case they're short strings, but the arguments to a function can
be arbitrary expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86102
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86102
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
My bad apologies, I pasted the wrong compiler output from older gcc
If I fix that const error in my sample, I get same output as you, with correct
carat.
Could I check - do you mean callnig a function like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86102
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
