From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21917 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2007 19:13:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 21727 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2007 19:13:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx-out.libertysurf.net (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) (213.36.80.91) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:12:58 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (83.156.216.103) by mail.libertysurf.net (7.3.118.8) id 46943A5F00F3BC9C; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:12:37 +0100 From: Eric Botcazou To: Alexandre Oliva Subject: Re: loc_mentioned_in_p invokes undefined behavior Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:47:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <200711081227.47743.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711082013.50567.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00461.txt.bz2 > I don't see any risk whatsoever. All 3 uses are evidently dealing > with rtx. Do you know of something I don't? I've already exposed my position. > I wouldn't mind turning the predicate into a void*, if that would make you > more comfortable about risk management, but just changing the XVECEXP test > while leaving a known inconsistency behind seems like bad engineering > practice to me. It's your interpretation, I don't see any inconsistency. -- Eric Botcazou