Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Furthermore, I've read people suggesting that we are gratuitously > broking code. That is misleading. The code was invoking undefined > behaviour and, before, we did not make any explicit guarantee about > the semantics. > It is one thing to argue for changing gear; but, one should try to > stay in "honest bounds". > > | I'm not exactly opposed to that, but I do > | wonder if it's the best use of people's time. But this is free > | software, and people choose their own priorities. > > Yup. We just have to make sure we don't end up in a mess. > > -- Gaby >
What I actually trying to get attention to, is the fact the we make undefined behavior even more undefined in *some* cases while leaving others intact. Moreover the semantic of check was already changed for 4.2 to hide taht ICE further - twice-casted case as well. And current behavior does runtime-trap too much code shooting not only ICE but well-behave code too. Actually all casts of not-compatible according to standard pointers is transformed to trap, even the sane convertion like from 'const char *' to 'char *'. Suppose un future when the optimizer will become smart enough to inline assign-casted function call that ICE'll raise again. Is it reasonable to tight check again and again?
