This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: False ODR violation positives on anonymous namespace types

On 05/11/2015 01:05 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:

On 05/11/2015 12:46 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:

Well, my main motivatoin to extend from RECORD_OR_UNION_TYPE_P was to handle
enums. But other case I would like to deal with are integer types - i.e. preserve
difference between char/signed char/unsigned char/short/int/long/wchar in cases
where they structurally coincide.


In what context?  Won't you get that from comparing e.g. the field
types of two definitions of the same class?


If one class define "int foo;" and other "long foo;" we currently do not complain
about ODR on 32bit targets while I think we could.
We certainly should. But that's a problem because foo is subject to the ODR. I don't see why you need to treat int as an ODR type to get checking for foo. 

Jason
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]