https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Well, in this case the user explicitly told compiler not to do that by not
> using a prototype and syntax which doesn't provide one from the definition.
> It is like using
> int f1 (struct C *x, struct A *y)
> {
> ...
> }
> definition in one TU, and
> int f1 (int, int);
> prototype and
> f1 (0, ~x)
> call in another one + using LTO. What I meant is how to do decide if the
> param_type vs. operand_type mismatch is ok or not.
I vote we do nothing extra for those clowns! Just return VARYING for a range
:-)
it seems like the safest thing to do?
