From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13031 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 00:29:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12528 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 00:27:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.wrs.com) (147.11.1.11) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 00:27:29 -0000 Received: from kankakee.wrs.com (kankakee [147.11.37.13]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14868; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:26:33 -0700 (PDT) From: mike stump Received: (from mrs@localhost) by kankakee.wrs.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.0) id RAA00692; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200204260027.RAA00692@kankakee.wrs.com> To: dann@godzilla.ICS.UCI.EDU, jason@redhat.com Subject: Re: C++ aliasing rules Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org References: X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01363.txt.bz2 > To: Dan Nicolaescu > Cc: mike stump , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org > From: Jason Merrill > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:44:05 +0100 > I don't see how Mike's statement answers my question. Yes, I agree, I don't think it does. > I would probably support writing that into the standard. But I > don't think that's what it says now. A hard line would be we should be conservative, and get it written into the standard first. I think it would be reasonable for the standard to say they don't alias. If we want to lead the standard, I think we can. Because the standard isn't perfectly clear, it would be good to document what we did.