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: Lowering of types?

From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:46:25 +0200
Subject: Re: Lowering of types?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0506021116220.30087-100000@alwazn.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> <20050602180655.GA10506@redhat.com>
Reply-to: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>

On 6/2/05, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:21:31AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > During type checking of the middle-end in the tree-optimizers
> > we run into type mismatches like
> 
> This isn't a type mismatch if the compatible_p langhook says
> they aren't.  Which I expect is true.

What exactly does it mean to the middle-end, if the compatible_p
langhook says true?  Does it mean if the middle-end exchanges one
type for the other there should be no observable effects (correctness
wise) down the road?

Thanks for clarifying,
Richard.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lowering of types?
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Lowering of types?
  - From: Geoffrey Keating

References:
- Lowering of types?
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: Lowering of types?
  - From: Richard Henderson

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