> OK. But, GIMPLE is also supposed to be type-safe, so I wouldn't think > that "int = long" would be well-formed gimple.
... or we *could* define it that way. My point is just that whatever type "compatibility" might mean at the GIMPLE level, it should just be a function of whether the types will produce different code, not something at the language level. The qustion of what we use the compatible types test for is different. I wasn't suggesting (at this point at least!) that it be changed, but didn't research exactly when it's used either.
