This is the mail archive of the 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 for stricter implicit conversions between vectors

On 11/14/06, Mark Mitchell <> wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <> writes:
>>> We do have such flags.  For example, -fpermissive and
>>> -ffriend-injection.
>> Except those are only for C++ and this case is a bit special.
> I disagree.  I appreciate your message, but it doesn't add any new
> facts, and doesn't change my feelings on this matter.  I won't bother
> to reply in detail, since it would add nothing to the conversation.

I agree with you that the flag is consistent with our precedent, and
that we should keep it.

Now Sony/IBM, and others have compilers that reject this code even with a 4.0.2 based compiler.

So again I don't think an option is useful for this case, it just
allows for sloppy code.
Which just happened to newlib beause this patch has not been applied yet.

See .

I know for a fact I am going to remove this option from the PS3
toolchain once we go to 4.3 because it just lets people write sloppy

We have a regression from 3.4.x about accepting invalid code.  Can any
time you have some C++ code that is recent regression, can you add a
flag, if we do that, then we end up with 4 flags currently.  Do we
really want to support all those 4 flags for at least 3 releases, I
don't think so.  At least one of them looks like it should have a flag
if we go by the above cretia, PR 20721 and another for C, PR 21419.
If this was not a regression, I would not be questioning a need for a
flag but this is a regression from a recent release that people
actually still use.

Andrew Pinski

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