Re: A: a new bug to old plain C

On Fri, 21 Nov 2025, 17:48 Александр Поваляев via Gcc-help, <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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!!!
>

It's not a bug.



> 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.
> >>
> >
>