[Cfp-interest] Fwd: (SC22WG14.12854) interchange types, equivalence, basic types

[Jim Thomas]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jim Thomas <jaswthomas at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: (SC22WG14.12854) interchange types, equivalence, basic types 
> Date: March 12, 2013 6:53:49 PM PDT
> To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino.org.uk>
> Cc: SC22 WG14 <sc22wg14 at open-std.org>
> 
> 
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:25 PM, "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Jim Thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there any reason to require a stricter sense of "equivalence" than in 
>>> the following?
>> 
>> Well, I can't tell from that which of the options
>> 
>> * same type;
>> * distinct, compatible types;
>> * distinct types, not compatible
>> 
>> are allowed, and I think the definition needs to make clear which options 
>> are permitted to the implementation.
> 
> They're intended to be distinct types that are not compatible, but that have the same representation and alignment requirements. We can make this explicit.
> 
> -Jim
> 
>> 
>>> Any problem with including data-interchange types as basic types?
>>> 
>>> The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types, the floating 
>>> types, and the data-interchange types are collectively called the basic 
>>> types.
>> 
>> I think defining these types as basic types should be OK.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Joseph S. Myers
>> joseph at codesourcery.com
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20130312/c0a82644/attachment.html