From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14789 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2004 21:10:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14782 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2004 21:10:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Oct 2004 21:10:52 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA01535; Sun, 17 Oct 04 17:14:39 EDT Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:18:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10410172114.AA01535@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: zack@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [patch] for PR 18040 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg01415.txt.bz2 What he's saying is that (and all other reference nodes) would implicitly convert FIELD to TYPE, if that's not FIELD's intrinsic type. I think this makes a hell of a lot of sense, personally. I have no problem with that, though I suspect it's a bit of an earthquake at this point. Would we do it for both GENERIC and GIMPLE or just the latter? Note that I also think that get_inner_reference and handle_component_p probably only need to handle VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR and not the rest of the conversions at this point.