This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Support non-standard extension (call via casted function pointer)
- From: Michael Karcher <debian at mkarcher dot dialup dot fu-berlin dot de>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Debian m68k <debian-68k at lists dot debian dot org>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, Matthias Klose <doko at debian dot org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:40:14 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: Support non-standard extension (call via casted function pointer)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56A697DE dot 5090207 at mkarcher dot dialup dot fu-berlin dot de> <85BF0BF8-F3BB-49F9-AA9F-5793017C7062 at gmail dot com> <56A73A99 dot 7030305 at physik dot fu-berlin dot de> <CAFiYyc0f7OzQqZQ72k9SwiPsmOBxTYPE2v88XahcJGJ_Y0zCGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <56A7C307 dot 3010701 at mkarcher dot dialup dot fu-berlin dot de> <9B390CB8-DA78-4811-8191-471BEC84DA1C at gmail dot com> <56A7DD01 dot 4090508 at mkarcher dot dialup dot fu-berlin dot de> <CAFiYyc12Zjbs0VkdTQkK03p4MSvS6Lb+xie4Y709QLJAshz6vg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 27.01.2016 11:33, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Michael Karcher
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 26.01.2016 21:47, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> I would still prefer the more obvious approach of using the target hook transition.
>> I intended to express in my last email: Me too, and I will prepare a
>> patch with a target hook if there is consensus that this patch can be
>> accepted. I do not want the current patch committed as-is, I just posted
>> it to get the idea across and start discussion.
> Yes, I think such patch would be accepted.
Great, that is at least one "yes". I still see a lot of doubt on
adjusting the m68k backend to not disturb the call of a function
declared with a wrong prototype when casted to the right type. This
includes Thorsten Otto, who suggests that the m68k backend is the wrong
place to patch, and Andreas Schwab (I took this discussion part off
firstname.lastname@example.org, probably a bad idea in hindsight) who points out that
ghc is lying to the compiler (I agree with that) and thus the compiler
does not need to be made compatible with that lie. I don't know the
process of patch acceptence in the gcc project, but one positive vote
against two doubtful or negative votes is not what I would call "consensus".