Bounced email

Bounced email

[Richard Kenner]

From daemon Mon Jun 25 11:40:58 2007
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA06498; Mon, 25 Jun 07 11:40:42 EDT
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 07 11:40:42 EDT
From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable
Message-Id: <10706251540.AA06498@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
To: kenner
Status: R

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
Connected to gcc.gnu.org:
>>> DATA
<<< 552 spam score exceeded threshold
554 gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org... Service unavailable

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA06490; Mon, 25 Jun 07 11:40:42 EDT
From: kenner (Richard Kenner)
Message-Id: <10706251540.AA06490@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:40:41 EDT
To: dnovillo@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Step 1 to a middle-end type-system
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rguenther@suse.de
In-Reply-To: <467FD773.3010607@google.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706221139190.24708@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
    <467FCFF5.80008@google.com>
    <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706251639300.24708@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
    <467FD773.3010607@google.com>

> Only one thought I've had which is probably naive and not very useful,
> what if the FE were to assign "type classes" with the very simple rule
> that all the types with the same class are compatible?

I continue to be unsure why we'd want the FE to have any role
whatsoever in middle-end type compatibility.  Why aren't the only
relevant things how the middle-end and back-ends would *use* the
types?  Two types would be equivalent if and only if they would be
treated identically by all processing *downstream*: I don't see why
upstream handling should be relevant.