From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105650-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31657 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 20:04:43 -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 31586 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 20:04:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 20:04:29 -0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id iANK43Q0019681;
	Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:04:03 +0100
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iANK43RK019680;
	Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:04:03 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
To: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: generalized lvalues -- patch outline
References: <4D2CF60C-3919-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com>
	<20041117212847.A26376@synopsys.com>
	<6F5FC748-7BBD-44B9-8DDC-246949F16102@apple.com>
	<20041118102741.A8347@synopsys.com>
	<77E8D36A-C0C2-4B03-964C-BEE0FE7BBBC3@apple.com>
	<98C86CD4-39E2-11D9-B2D5-000A95BCF344@apple.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0411192234480.29201@wotan.suse.de>
	<CAE3B44A-3A8C-11D9-9070-000D9330C50E@apple.com>
	<20041119170011.A30410@synopsys.com>
	<9E6AD708-3A93-11D9-9070-000D9330C50E@apple.com>
	<20041119174042.A1311@synopsys.com>
	<90DC5074-3A96-11D9-9070-000D9330C50E@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>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411231650120.29201@wotan.suse.de>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m34qjgz618.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00843.txt.bz2

Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> writes:

| > 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),

then, such packages deserve being broken loudly because the former is not
equivalent to the second, with ou without the abomination in question :-)

-- Gaby