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


> > > > +      type = build_variant_type_copy (orig_type);
> > > >        TYPE_ALIGN (type) = boundary;
> > > > +      TYPE_CANONICAL (type) = TYPE_CANONICAL (orig_type);
> > >
> > > Eek.  So, despite having different alignments, we consider these types
> > > "the same"?  If that's what we already do, then it's OK to preserve that
> > > behavior, but it sure seems worrisome.
> >
> > I'm concerned about that as well.  I think we need a more precise
> > definition someplace of what is allowed to differ between two "variants"
> > of a type.
> 
> I've been following whatever "comptypes" does, because that's the
> behavior canonical types need to mimic to provide the same behavior
> that we have now.

But the above creates a variant.  That's what's confusing us.


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