This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] where to fix this?
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:13:08 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] where to fix this?
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20040106110538.A9066@synopsys.com>, Joe Buck writes:
>On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:32:06AM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
>> This is why I said the #1 thing we have to decide is how strict do we want
>> to be regarding types of operands within expressions. If we go with an
>> absolutely strict system, then we need to rethink how we deal with
>> type conversions in the optimizers. If we go with a looser system, then
>> we need to figure out how to deal with it sanely within the checkers
>> and the expanders.
>The system should be precisely specified, so I think that "tight" and
>"loose" are the wrong words.
Agreed. 100%. I wasn't saying we shouldn't precisely specify it, merely
that we have to figure out what the specification should be, then do the
work necessary to make that happen.
>If you just drift into a type system based on what people code, you're
>going to have trouble.
Precisely. That is where we are today and long term it's not maintainable.