On 27.01.2016 11:33, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Michael Karcher > <deb...@mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> On 26.01.2016 21:47, Richard Biener wrote: >> >>> I would still prefer the more obvious approach of using the target hook >>> transition. >> I intended to express in my last email: Me too, and I will prepare a >> patch with a target hook if there is consensus that this patch can be >> accepted. I do not want the current patch committed as-is, I just posted >> it to get the idea across and start discussion. > Yes, I think such patch would be accepted. Great, that is at least one "yes". I still see a lot of doubt on adjusting the m68k backend to not disturb the call of a function declared with a wrong prototype when casted to the right type. This includes Thorsten Otto, who suggests that the m68k backend is the wrong place to patch, and Andreas Schwab (I took this discussion part off gcc@gcc.gnu.org, probably a bad idea in hindsight) who points out that ghc is lying to the compiler (I agree with that) and thus the compiler does not need to be made compatible with that lie. I don't know the process of patch acceptence in the gcc project, but one positive vote against two doubtful or negative votes is not what I would call "consensus".
Regards, Michael Karcher
