From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105629-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28967 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 16:09:49 -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 28347 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 16:09:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.170.207)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 16:09:20 -0000
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id j1so558278rnf
        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.38.77.37 with SMTP id z37mr186248rna;
        Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.38.171.67 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <84fc9c00041123080913f2151d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:31:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Subject: Re: generalized lvalues -- patch outline
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>, 
	Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>, 
	Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>, 
	Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com>, Steve Naroff <snaroff@apple.com>, 
	gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>, 
	Joe Buck <joe.buck@synopsys.com>, 
	Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>, Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411231650120.29201@wotan.suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <4D2CF60C-3919-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com>
	 <9CD04F70-3CC6-11D9-B847-000D9330C50E@apple.com>
	 <41A253A2.1050205@codesourcery.com>
	 <24BB97A2-3CD3-11D9-B847-000D9330C50E@apple.com>
	 <41A30346.8050602@codesourcery.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411231244000.29201@wotan.suse.de>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411230833250.16150@dberlin.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411231541340.29201@wotan.suse.de>
	 <m37jocr2k7.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411231650120.29201@wotan.suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00822.txt.bz2

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:57:58 +0100 (CET), Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> >
> > Probably, this sort of situations probably happen because some people
> > have been encouraged in conceiving programming as an activity of
> > throwing random codes to the compiler and see what happens.
> 
> Possible.  This is one of the ways to learn programming.  And despite what
> the language standard says, to my eyes "(T*)p++" looks like a natural way
> to write p+=sizeof(T), so I'm somewhat sympathetic to programmers using
> this construct.

Especially as it would need

 p = (__typeof__(p))((char *)p + sizeof(T));

If you restrict *(T*)p++ to p of char* or void* type, how many broken packages
would be left?  I think at least those should be fixed.

Richard.

> Ciao,
> Michael.
>