This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR21082 for C++

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:50:20 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR21082 for C++
References: <426AAF60.4090009@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> <20050424172720.GA24674@redhat.com> <84fc9c0005042410325c62a67e@mail.gmail.com> <20050424174821.GA24776@redhat.com> <84fc9c000504241057691fcfc7@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:57:35PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> While this would be possible, I fail to see the advantage of doing this.
> You will end up in (ptrdiff_t)((domain_t)i - (domain_t)j) instead of
> (ptrdiff_t)i - (ptrdiff_t)j.  Are you concerned about correctness or about
> more folding oportunities here?

Conceptual correctness.  I don't like the idea of multiplying pointers.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR21082 for C++
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- [PATCH] Fix PR21082 for C++
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR21082 for C++
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR21082 for C++
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR21082 for C++
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR21082 for C++
  - From: Richard Guenther

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]