From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-43026-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1705 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2001 01:12:18 -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 1493 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2001 01:11:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Dec 2001 01:11:00 -0000
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA32700;
	Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:10:55 -0800
Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1)
	id xma032686; Mon, 17 Dec 01 17:10:48 -0800
Received: from penguin.transmeta.com (penguin.transmeta.com [10.10.27.78])
	by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBI1ArS19715;
	Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:10:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (torvalds@localhost) by penguin.transmeta.com (8.11.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id fBI1A1O02080; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:10:01 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.transmeta.com: torvalds owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:43:00 -0000
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
cc: <dewar@gnat.com>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Big-endian Gcc on Intel IA32
In-Reply-To: <20011217155059.A15788@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112171704530.2035-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00962.txt.bz2


On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 03:08:58PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So I wasn't talking about a "const" like bit (even though it shares some
> > of the notions with "const"), but more of an "immutable" bit.
>
> That's not going to be possible without a lot of invasion
> into the type system.

Hmm? Not even just add a warning for _all_ casts of such pointers? This is
purely static thing, after all.

Or is it that the information just isn't carried around in a convenient
format? gcc does seem to warn about _some_ casts ("discards qualifiers
from pointer target type", "makes integer from pointer without cast").
Does it lose the information early for explicit casts or something?

		Linus