This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
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.