This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)
"Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor@gmail.com> writes:
| On 12/5/06, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
| > > So, TYPE_NEXT_VARIANT basically contains a mish-mash of types that are
| > > somehow related to the TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT, but may or may not be
| > > equivalent.
| >
| > The issue is what does "somehow related" mean. In the past, I didn't think
| > that two types that had different alignments were consider sufficiently
| > related to have the same TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT. So it seems wrong to have that
| > happen now.
|
| It's always been happening; I haven't changed this at all. I'm just
| modeling what the system does now, and grafting canonical types on top
| of it. We can fix this system (Mark's proposal is, I think, the right
| way to do this), and I'm all for it. But we shouldn't do that as part
| of canonicalizing types.
That should happen before tthe unified type nodes are in. It would reduce
confusion.
-- Gaby