Re: A: a new bug to old plain C

Hi there!

Per my understanding it should work fine! Some compilers do work fine. Some
compilers don't. So, this is "NON STABLE" behaviour.
I am wondering why nobody else has reported this BUG before!!!

The use-case is pretty simple: we are iterating over an array (I mean
'plain old C array).
And so, we need a final point of iteration (end_ptr).

In case of array ('plain old C array') of, let's say, integers, it would
look like this: "const int * const end_of_iteration = array_ptr + count".
And in case of array of pointers, it looks like: "const int * const * const
end_of_iteration = array_ptr + count".

Respectfully,
Aleksandr G Povaliaev.


пт, 21 нояб. 2025 г. в 06:24, Chris S <[email protected]>:

> You're applying two consts to the same thing, so it's an error.
>
> "Const int" and "int const" are the same (look up East vs West const), but
> "const int const" is an error.  Declaring a pointer to that invalid type
> declaration is still invalid.
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025, 5:27 PM Александр Поваляев via Gcc-help <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> struct zzz {
>> unsigned x, y;
>> };
>>
>> void square(struct zzz ** arr_of_ptr, unsigned count) {
>>
>> *// The first "const" produce an error (not a warning) within some GCC
>> toolchains, for example ARM GCC trunk (linux), see goldbolt.org
>> <http://goldbolt.org>*
>> struct zzz const * const * const end_of_arr = arr_of_ptr + count;
>>
>> *// Without the first const "struct zzz * const * const end_of_arr =
>> arr_of_ptr + count;" it works fine!!!*
>>
>> }
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Aleksandr G Povaliaev.
>>
>