This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: g++ and aliasing bools


On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> 
> > Can the  AGGREGATE_TYPE_P check be relaxed for classes that don't have
> > a base class?
> 
> Maybe, but it needs careful thought.  "It makes sense" isn't good enough;
> we need a proof that this is safe.  Such a proof needs to take into
> account that other classes may be derived (possibly indirectly or
> virtually) from the simple class.
What do you consider "proof"?
What more than not causing any regressions are you looking for?
I don't think code to fix this problem should be held to any higher 
standard than code to fix other problems.
Not that it should be introduced into 3.1 at this late a stage, but to say 
that it requires "proof" is vague, and implies you think something more 
than what other patches go through is neccessary.
--Dan


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