This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ aliasing rules
- From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann at godzilla dot ICS dot UCI dot EDU>
- To: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Cc: jason at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:01:11 -0700
- Subject: Re: C++ aliasing rules
- References: <email@example.com><200204260027.RAA00692@kankakee.wrs.com>
Now that 3.1 is out of the way we can reopen this discussion...
For reference the start of this thread is at:
mike stump <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@godzilla.ICS.UCI.EDU>
> > Cc: mike stump <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> > From: Jason Merrill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:44:05 +0100
> > I don't see how Mike's statement answers my question.
> Yes, I agree, I don't think it does.
> > I would probably support writing that into the standard. But I
> > don't think that's what it says now.
> A hard line would be we should be conservative, and get it written
> into the standard first. I think it would be reasonable for the
> standard to say they don't alias.
> If we want to lead the standard, I think we can. Because the standard
> isn't perfectly clear, it would be good to document what we did.
If we decide to lead the standard, I volunteer the write the patch and
the associated GCC documentation.
Somebody else will have to take care about the standardization
Who can make a decision about this?