Hi Janus,
and in that
case I would argue that, beyond being "not useful", it's even illegal,
so why not throw a hard error, if we can infer at compile-time that
the target is non-contiguous?
Problem is, we cannot infer this from the tests done.
We would also have to add a test if the array is
Hi Thomas,
and in that
case I would argue that, beyond being "not useful", it's even illegal,
so why not throw a hard error, if we can infer at compile-time that
the target is non-contiguous?
>>>
>>> Problem is, we cannot infer this from the tests done.
>>> We would also have t
Hi Janus,
I think an unconditional warning is OK
in this case because
- Assigning to a pointer from an obvious non-contiguous target
is not useful at all, that I can see
I guess you're talking about a *contiguous* pointer here,
Correct.
and in that
case I would argue that, beyond bei
Hi Thomas,
>>> I think an unconditional warning is OK
>>> in this case because
>>>
>>> - Assigning to a pointer from an obvious non-contiguous target
>>>is not useful at all, that I can see
>>
>>
>> I guess you're talking about a *contiguous* pointer here,
>
> Correct.
>
>> and in that
>> case
Hi Janus,
I think an unconditional warning is OK
in this case because
- Assigning to a pointer from an obvious non-contiguous target
is not useful at all, that I can see
I guess you're talking about a *contiguous* pointer here,
Correct.
and in that
case I would argue that, beyond be
Hi Thomas,
> the attached patch warns about the dubious pointer assignments (see
> test case for details).
thanks for the patch! Sounds like a useful diagnostic.
> I think an unconditional warning is OK
> in this case because
>
> - Assigning to a pointer from an obvious non-contiguous target
>
Hello world,
the attached patch warns about the dubious pointer assignments (see
test case for details). I think an unconditional warning is OK
in this case because
- Assigning to a pointer from an obvious non-contiguous target
is not useful at all, that I can see
- Some language laywer will