gcc3 vs 176.gcc

[Joe Buck]

I wrote:

> I think that the check happens too late if it is done this way.
> Better to detect that the rules are broken at the time of tree->RTL
> conversion.  In the 176.gcc case, as soon as we parse
> 
> 	((int *)rt)[length]
> 
> and note that the type of rt is not pointer to (possibly cv-qualified)
> int or unsigned, we know already that the rules have been broken,
> independent of what the backend is.

What if we tell the back end that such a pointer expression (one that
breaks the rules) is a pointer to char*, or aliases like one? (can
collide with anything)?