Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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 ...
And the potential "bugs in the gimplifier" are precisely the reasons why that definition isn't helfpul. Why in this case, Kenner's problem isn't one of those potential "bugs in the gimplifier"? -- Gaby
