This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: type consistency of gimple
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Hubicha, Jan" <jh at suse dot cz>, "Edelsohn, David" <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:23:36 -0700
- Subject: Re: type consistency of gimple
- References: <44DCEAAA.9000306@naturalbridge.com> <84fc9c000608111344l3cc4b9f0w97f104da6ed5b7ad@mail.gmail.com> <44DCEDF1.9010902@naturalbridge.com> <84fc9c000608111356n6bd522d5gd349007fdcb0cd1b@mail.gmail.com> <44DCF0A0.1060005@naturalbridge.com> <44DF6702.4060901@codesourcery.com> <44E074F4.3050402@dberlin.org> <44E08E4C.4060902@redhat.com>
Diego Novillo wrote:
> If we had a GIMPLE type-system, we could allow the implicit type
> conversions.
Right, I was trying to make this point earlier, but not being clear. It
doesn't matter if every last conversion is explicit, as long as there
are clear rules about where conversions may be implicit, and what the
semantics of those conversions are. The question of where exactly to
let implicit conversions occur can be driven by space considerations and
convenience.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713