This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 28 Nov 2006 08:51:49 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)
References: <24b520d20611280755x5117377fh7e4e1344575fb17d@mail.gmail.com> <571f6b510611280838v586c2df1hb082569aff0d21cf@mail.gmail.com>

"Steven Bosscher" <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> writes:

> On 11/28/06, Doug Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >         * tree.h (TYPE_CANONICAL): New.
> >         (TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY): New.
> >         (struct tree_type): Added structural_equality, unused_bits,
> >         canonical fields.
> 
> If I understand your patches correctly, this stuff is only needed for
> the C-family languages.  So why steal two pointers on the generic
> struct tree_type?  Are you planning to make all front ends use these
> fields, or is it just additional bloat for e.g. Ada, Fortran, Java?
> ;-)

It seems to me that all the frontends should use these fields.
Hopefully we can use it as a lever to eliminate the types_compatible_p
langhook.

Ian

References:
- [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)
  - From: Doug Gregor
- Re: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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