On 09/05/13 15:50, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Apart from Paolo Carlini's suggestion to improve the wording of the ChangeLog,
this patch hasn't been reviewed for more than a week:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg01634.html
I don't think the issue is whether they should be treated as equivalent, but
whether there's an implicit promotion from (say) vec-of-int to vec-of-long. For
instance, given:
int_vec_t i;
long_vec_t l;
if:
s < l
is well formed, then think it reasonable for:
void Foo (long_vec_t);
...
Foo (i);
to be well formed too. Is that true with your patch?
Now, what implicit promotions are permitted? IIUC you're saying that promotions
that don't change the element size are ok. I'm fine with that (provided
references aren't involved).
nathan
