From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31481 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2004 05:04:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31462 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2004 05:04:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO yosemite.airs.com) (209.128.65.135) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Nov 2004 05:04:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 15947 invoked by uid 10); 25 Nov 2004 05:04:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 22962 invoked by uid 500); 25 Nov 2004 05:03:54 -0000 From: Ian Lance Taylor To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: generalized lvalues -- patch outline References: <4D2CF60C-3919-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <200411232305.56192.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <200411240051.19500.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00943.txt.bz2 "Joseph S. Myers" writes: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > > http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20041009_276.html#3 > > > > > compatibility between versions. I even have userland programs which do not > > compile anymore with gcc-3.3 and which I don't even know how to > > 'fix' (workaround ?)."> > > If 3.3 is the problem version, lvalue casts aren't the issue; they are > still present in 3.3. (The backporting of the deprecation which was put > in 3.3.4 is something I would consider dubious: though backporting a > deprecation may be tempting and give users more warning, it also might > break code that was working with that release series, which really should > be avoided within a release series once it has first had a release: > upgrading from a.b.c to a.b.c+1 should always be safe even with code using > a feature that is going to go away.) Given that lvalue casts were actually removed after the 3.4 series, and given that, whether you like it or not, they are in fact widely used, I think that it was absolutely essential to get the warning into 3.3.4, so that people would have a chance to fix their bug before it completely breaks. I certainly agree that the warning should have been in 3.3.0, or that the removal should have been pushed into 4.1. Ian