From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-52604-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6972 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 19:01:10 -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 6924 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 19:01:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO gremlin.ics.uci.edu) (128.195.1.70)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 19:01:08 -0000
Received: from vino.ics.uci.edu  ( vino.ics.uci.edu [128.195.11.198] )
          by gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu id aa25976 ; 17 May 2002 12:01 PDT
To: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>
Cc: jason@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: C++ aliasing rules
References: <wvl1yd3u10a.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com>
	<200204260027.RAA00692@kankakee.wrs.com>
From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@godzilla.ICS.UCI.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <200204260027.RAA00692@kankakee.wrs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:09:00 -0000
Message-ID:  <200205171201.aa25976@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu>
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg01532.txt.bz2

Now that 3.1 is out of the way we can reopen this discussion... 
For reference the start of this thread is at: 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2002-04/msg00049.html


mike stump <mrs@windriver.com> writes:

  > > To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@godzilla.ICS.UCI.EDU>
  > > Cc: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
  > > From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
  > > 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.

If we decide to lead the standard, I volunteer the write the patch and
the associated GCC documentation. 
Somebody else will have to take care about the standardization
process... 

Who can make a decision about this? 


        --dan