From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-60854-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5262 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2002 05:52:11 -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 5251 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2002 05:52:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2002 05:52:10 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id 61745F28F4; Wed,  2 Oct 2002 01:52:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: Joe.Buck@synopsys.com, dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: module level flags
Cc: Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM, aoliva@redhat.com, bkorb@pacbell.net,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org, zack@codesourcery.com
Message-Id: <20021002055210.61745F28F4@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 00:53:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2

Joe sent a message addressed to me in which it looked as if I said

> <<It's not a matter of not wanting to learn the rules.  It's a matter
> of dealing with massive amounts of legacy code written before the
> aliasing optimizations were devised.  This is a change in the C
> language that is only a very few years old.  Silently biting people
> isn't the way to do it.
> >>

I trust everyone reaslizes that this is not the case, I was quoting from
the one person in this thread who has this viewpoint :-) :-)