On 9/6/05, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think we ever defined "valid GENERIC" that way. > > About a year ago, when we tried to define it, that's what we came up > with. If that isn't the definition, then what *is*? The problem is that > we have no document that says what is and is not valid GENERIC. At > least the proposed definition can answer the question of whether or not > something is valid.
The only useful definition is that valid GENERIC is what the gimplifier can turn into valid GIMPLE, which is much more well-defined ;) Modulo bugs in the gimplifier of course ... Richard.
