On 20 June 2007 15:25, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 6/20/07, Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> /* If the outer type is (void *), then the conversion is not
>>> necessary. ??? This makes tree_ssa_useless_type_conversion_1 not
>>> transitive. */
>>
>> Not this line itself makes it not transitive, but the fact that it still
>> relies on the frontends langhooks makes it so. Document that fact so it's
>> clear that when the final goal is implemented (langhook removed) this
>> doesn't violate transitivity.
>
> Huh? Yes it does violate transivity. int *a; void *b;
> "b = a;" vs "a = (int*)b;" (this is IR form I am talking about).
>
> -- Pinski
That's commutativity. Transitivity would mean that if you can assign a to b
without a conversion, and you can assign b to c without a conversion, then you
can assign a to c without a conversion.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
