Re: [PATCH 1/6] storage should not be inherited by pointers

[Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:04:56AM +0800, Christopher Li wrote:
> Sorry I jump the conclusion. If it is only concern with MOD_STATIC,
>  MOD_EXTERN & MOD_TOPLEVEL, that is not a bug issue at all.
> I thought you are going to extend that logic to other modifier bits as well.

Well ... yes and no :)
Like it can be seen in the other patches, I mostly just
wrote some tests that, I think, clearly expose soem problems.
Those problems can be considered as bugs or not, some clearly are,
I think, some much less so but trigger questions.

I think we should clearly define what is the desired behavior of
modifiers like nocast, noderef, bitwise, ... when
- taking the address of an object with such modifiers
- using typeof() on such object or pointers
- assignment with them (but this seems much better done/defined)

The case with 'safe' is similar but its working is a bit different.

And indeed, like I think you fear, any changes regarding the
address_space will create problems in existing code and
it's why I think it's better for now to first look at the situation
with the modifiers.

You certainly can see this seriemore  as the start of a reflexion
than a try to solve anything.

Luc