This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch: stab info for const fields
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: aph at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, zack at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 02 07:46:42 EST
- Subject: Re: Patch: stab info for const fields
You seem to have smipped
Most of the time there is just one, well-defined, conversion
operation that makes sense in any such context. If there is none,
or if there could be multiple intended semantics, the tree is
ill-formed; the middle-end will abort if handed such a tree.
So the question becomes: "in what circumstances is there just one,
well-defined, conversion that makes sense?" If we properly define
those circumstances the problem is solved.
Well, that's exactly what we're trying to do: to "properly define" what
"implicit conversions" are valid. What is your proposal?
To restate the four that we've talked about into that terminology, they are:
(1) None.
(2) Only between types whose TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT are the same.
(3) Some other, language-independent formulation.
(3a) A language-dependent formulation.
So we're back to the original question.