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: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)


Hi Doug, everyone,

> > 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.

> > + type = build_variant_type_copy (orig_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.

At the risk of being of topic, and vague, I'd like to remind Doug and all the interested people that, talking about C++0x, we have the open issue C++/19163, which, among other things, blocks a general, fully conforming, implementation of the alignment traits. If someone, among the knowledgeable people, can start giving some thought to the issue it would be great (*)...


Paolo.

(*) Myself, while we are speaking, I'm trying to make progress on the other parts of the front-end support to type traits task (C++/26099).


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