[Bug tree-optimization/21568] [4.0/4.1 regression] Casts in folding *& omitted

["gcc2eran at tromer dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org  2005-07-03 12:12 -------
To make it easier to evaluate my claim, here are all messages in the thread
linked from comment 1 that seemingly contradicy comment 9:

Nathan Sidwell: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00085.html
Dale Johannesen: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00090.html
Andrew Haley: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00144.html

All of these, I am sorry to say, misinterpret the standard since they
misconstrue the meaning of the term "object" in the C type system. They assume
that the object's type is determined by the way it was created (which is indeed
the usual meaning in other languages), whereas the standard quite clearly
defines an object's type to be determined by the lvalue referencing it.

To give one example of this confusion, here is what Dale Johannesen said:
  "the standard consistently talks about the type of the object,
  not the type of the lvalue, when describing volatile."
And here is what N1124 [6.3.2.1/1] says:
  "When an object is said to have a particular type, the type is
   specified by the lvalue used to designate the object."
See my point?

I admit to earning my language lawyer diploma on languages other than C, but the
evidence in comment 9 seems very firm to me. Does anyone see any flaw in it? If
not, then shouldn't this bug be reopened?

Hey, we should be *happy* that we found a standard-compliance excluse to fix the
code-breaking regression and make those casts work like everybody wanted!

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21568