From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21489 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2004 23:50:25 -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 21478 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 23:50:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 23:50:23 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9JNoLQM029345; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:50:21 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9JNoGr15238; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:50:16 -0400 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.27]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9JNoDvn027108; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:50:14 -0400 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9JNoDUg021131; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:50:13 -0700 Received: (from rth@localhost) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i9JNoDKf021129; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:50:13 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:02:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Richard Kenner , dberlin@dberlin.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [patch] for PR 18040 Message-ID: <20041019235013.GA21112@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Zack Weinberg , Richard Kenner , dberlin@dberlin.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <10410172054.AA01431@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <87zn2lrr8y.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20041019213522.GD19976@redhat.com> <871xfuqq3d.fsf@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871xfuqq3d.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg01678.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 03:51:18PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Okay. Can you explain why? Do you have an alternative suggestion? Because the field has type T. If we need something of type U, then we need a conversion. Period. Failure to abide by type rules DOES lead to failures. We've already seen this. This sort of sloppiness was once rampant in the front ends, and is why check_pointer_types_r exists. Alternate suggestions? None particularly constructive. Personally I think we shouldn't bother worrying about getting decent code out of some of these test cases. Folks that abuse unchecked_conversion like this get what they deserve. r~