On 3/10/20 6:13 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > On 3/10/20 5:07 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> As I stated in my previous answer, this seems more code churn than an >> actual fix. If this is a real problem, shouldn't the work be put into >> fixing the compiler to handle foo[0] instead? It seems that is where the >> real value would be. > > Yeah. But, unfortunately, I'm not a compiler guy, so I'm not able to fix the > compiler as you suggest. And I honestly don't see what is so annoying/disturbing > about applying a patch that removes the 0 from foo[0] when it brings benefit > to the whole codebase. My point is that it adds what seems like unnecessary churn, which is not a benefit, and it doesn't improve the generated code. Best regards, Jes
