On 13 Nov 2005 02:00:08 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > > | > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > > | > | > | of what the semantics of REFERENCE_TYPE are/should be, then yes. > | > | > > | > | > See, it is not a semantics I made up. Even people arguing for null > | > | > reference recognize it is undefined behaviour. > | > | > | > | With C++ yes but not with Fortran where there are optional arguments. > | > > | > Then what is the difference between a pointer type and a reference type? > | > | To the middle-end nothing, > > That is why GCC got it wrong.
And this is why there seemed to be consensus to merge the two in the middle-end and preserve debug-info somehow differently. Like with a "frontend type-id" on the decl. That would allow lowering of f.i. integral types to their modes at some point, too. Richard. (blue) > [...] > > | GCC is not a C++ play ground. > > ? > > -- Gaby > >
