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: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Thorsten Otto <halgara at yahoo dot de>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Debian m68k <debian-68k at lists dot debian dot org>, Matthias Klose <doko at debian dot org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:15:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: Support non-standard extension (call via casted function pointer)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56A7C307 dot 3010701 at mkarcher dot dialup dot fu-berlin dot de> <1824417918 dot 1565020 dot 1453907423941 dot JavaMail dot yahoo at mail dot yahoo dot com> <CAFiYyc0fAj3Dq6SEySEf93_Fx0heK5nh9VRrY-u8VNDePyqYdw at mail dot gmail dot com> <mvmbn86gk17 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56A9D925 dot 7030002 at physik dot fu-berlin dot de> <mvmy4baf2ag dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de>
On 28.01.2016 11:04, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <email@example.com> writes:
>> [suggestion to use "void" as dummy return type]
>> Wait. Do you think this would actually allow ghc to determine the
>> return type later? If I remember correctly, ghc currently initially
>> declares the function prototype with return type void*, doesn't it?
> Replace a lie with a different lie. Spot the pattern?
I am sorry, I fail to spot any pattern. As I understood you, you are
opposed to changing gcc because a program that lies to gcc fails to get
the result this program expects. But I don't see any pattern in
"replacing a lie with a different lie". Please be more specific in what
your message should tell the recipients.
In case you refer to the ppc64el issue of ghc, and try to imply that
changing lies at it fits has precedence in ghc history (and thus ghc
either needs to stop lying or find a new lie that just happens to work),
I strongly disagree. In that case, ghc developers not "replace a lie
with a different lie", but replaced a lie "(empty parameter list)" with
the truth "(unknown parameter list)".