> 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.

Reply via email to