This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C/C++ FEs: Do we really need three char_type_nodes?
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:46:48AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> This is not really possible because when lto1 runs, it needs to have a
> unique version of char_type_node and the multiple .o files will
> potentially have different versions of it. In essence, char_type_node
> needs not exist in GIMPLE or we have to standardize it to either
> signed_char_type_node or unsigned_char_type_node.
>
> So, when we go into GIMPLE, all the instances of char_type_node need
> to be converted into unsigned_char_type_node or signed_char_type_node.
> This way different CUs can have different notions of char signedness
> explicitly outlined in the IL.
This seems like it would be fraught with pitfalls; maybe it would be
easier to have the streamed char_type_node indicate its signedness?
- Has the story for debug info been figured out yet? Char is not
signed char to GDB.
- What about binding to templates or overloaded functions?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery