------- Comment #114 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-05-22 18:01 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the dynamic type as it should
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement | new does not change the dynamic type as it should | | gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote: | > ------- Comment #112 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-05-22 17:46 ------- | > Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the | > dynamic type as it should | > | > "mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | But, I don't think the standard contemplated | > | these issues in sufficient detail to make it useful in this respect. | > | > The issues has been raised on the -core reflector. | | So that I understand, do you mean that they have been raised in the | past, and settled, or that you've just raised them now? I just raised it, mainly because I do not believe your conclusions are right. The type information you can get from write and read are not just those appearing lexically in a scope. In fact, the semantics is defined in terms of the run time read and write access. That is what makes "C a strongly typed and weakly check language" (DMR). This whole issue does not mean you have to abandon TBAA. It means you have be careful in how you use the information gained from TBAA. In particular, many conclusions are OK when you have the definition of the objects at hand. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29286