On 27.01.2016 11:33, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Michael Karcher
<debian@mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de> 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
gcc@gcc.gnu.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".