Re: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)

[kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)]

> > What I'm a little concerned about is whether if we ask for a const variant
> > of some type, we can accept a const-variant of any type that has the
> > same TYPE_CANONICAL value.  I don't know enough about the relevant language
> > issues to know if we can, but I suspect so (though not if we allow
> > TYPE_ALIGN to be different; however it's hard to see how those are "the
> > same type").
> 
> If I've followed the discussion right, we don't want to do this.  Those
> two might be equivalent from the language point of view (in fact I
> think they must be), but we still want to distinguish them for debug info.

I think that's right.  But that just means that we have to search the list
for the same TYPE_NAME.