gcc 4.2 more strict check for "function called through a non-compatible type"

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Yuri Pudgorodsky <yur@ptci.ru> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Furthermore, I've read people suggesting that we are gratuitously
| > broking code.  That is misleading.  The code was invoking undefined
| > behaviour and, before, we did not make any explicit guarantee about
| > the semantics. 
| > It is one thing to argue for changing gear; but, one should try to
| > stay in "honest bounds".
| >
| > | I'm not exactly opposed to that, but I do
| > | wonder if it's the best use of people's time.  But this is free
| > | software, and people choose their own priorities.
| >
| > Yup.  We just have to make sure we don't end up in a mess.
| >
| > -- Gaby
| >   
| 
| What I actually trying to get attention to, is the fact the we make
| undefined behavior
| even more undefined in *some* cases while leaving others intact.

I believe I understand your general objection.  I don't feel strongly
about the current behaviour, except that if it has to change then it
must be a documented extension.   

I don't think we can meaningfully order the space of "undefined
behaviour" and single out some as are "more undefined behaviour than
others". 

-- Gaby