Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Is this valid C?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 09:10:40 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <lnh93cdisv.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <o8858o$g1g$1@dont-email.me> <o8ebd6$mis$1@dont-email.me> <e481bb65-b8cd-4020-8925-3e7363ebf373@googlegroups.com> <o8f3s6$8qk$1@dont-email.me> <9e683fb3-c692-4777-8e58-6ab23eee68ff@googlegroups.com> <lnh93on5n4.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <726ddfc8-83af-47db-8a18-08d921816e82@googlegroups.com> <ln4lzomwrg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <3bee4191-6834-4b99-bf92-d8ca5b8b34e2@googlegroups.com> <lnzihgleff.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <68dc7263-0d48-432b-bc08-a6536fda6382@googlegroups.com> <lnvas4lah6.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <e9cf668e-dc05-4850-ad09-43f0b1e785da@googlegroups.com> <t9mdnSdlmLqLlinFnZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@supernews.com> <3c762130-8395-45f8-bd74-18ffa98b007c@googlegroups.com> <3IKdnU56gPHH_CnFnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@supernews.com> <e45c3039-8c40-4028-86cb-90c068b1c301@googlegroups.com> <s8ydnTlAhKG5zSjFnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@supernews.com> <c4a4babe-62dd-4a35-b146-f6c088981b02@googlegroups.com> <kaidnfGhmYXEBSvFnZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@supernews.com> <ac146a38-61ad-4444-911e-2ac4a80b0451@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="40f2111bd31821bfebd41309549fe646"; logging-data="21586"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/I7/yD+Wm5XfUTAbK1vSQd"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xPxnJlsyY+LCX8T5hBgv3YKlEfk= sha1:fx1w0B4XCeEIIm/32serS9Bqjaw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:105282

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
[...]
> My approach would not require a compiler to track what kinds of conversions
> have been done with objects, but rather regard conversions as a type of
> sequenced *action* which will not generate any code, but must be carried
> through the optimizer as an action which doesn't generate any code, somewhat
> like an empty asm directive.

If you're talking about conversions in general, that's clearly absurd.
For example, an int-to-double conversion must generate some code (unless
the result can be determined at compile time).

If you're talking only about pointer conversions, apparently you're
proposing that the language should require that all pointer types have
the same representation.  Is that what you're proposing?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"