On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:03 PM, James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote:
> Is that be sensible? It certainly seems like someone intended to > explicitly enumerate all the possible cases and ensure that they were > correctly handled. That someone would be me. We need to catch loudly any front-end tree code, e.g. ASTs, object we may have missed, as opposed to silently ignoring them with possible miscompilation and pray that someone might be sufficiently pissed off and report it as a bug. What is wrong isn't that the front-end inserts internal coverage check; rather it is the fact that we don't have enough separation between front-end asts and middle-end stuff. The convenience of adding a middle-end optimization (which this essentially is) should not trump correctness of the implementation of standard semantics. -- Gaby
