From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-45172-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15172 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 16:10:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15022 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 16:10:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 16:10:30 -0000
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA12570; Fri, 25 Jan 02 11:04:47 EST
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 08:33:00 -0000
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Message-Id: <10201251604.AA12570@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
To: dan@dberlin.org
Subject: Re: g++ and aliasing bools
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg01636.txt.bz2

    They don't avoid undecidability, or else we wouldn't have alias set 0.
    If we could determine what everything aliases, we wouldn't need a set 
    that aliases everything.

I didn't say they *avoid* undecidability, just avoid the undecidability
*problem* by separating static language semantics from all other aspects
of alising.