This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Re: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)
On 12/5/06, Mark Mitchell <email@example.com> wrote:
Doug Gregor wrote:
>> Does it ever make sense to have both TYPE_CANONICAL and
>> TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY set?
> No, it does not make sense for both to be set.
>> If we have to do the structural equality
>> test, then it seems to me that the canonical type isn't useful, and we
>> might as well not construct it.
You're referring to eliminating the 1-bit flag for
TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY, and instead using TYPE_CANONICAL ==
>> Have you tested with flag_check_canonical_types on, and verified that
>> you get no warnings?
> Yes. I bootstrapped with C, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, and Java,
> then ran "make check" for the first four languages, along with "make
> check" for libstdc++. No warnings anywhere.
OK, that's great. Unfortunately, I think you should to do that again
with the final patch, which I know takes a while. Feel free to post a
more casually tested patch for me to provisionally review, if you like.
Will do. I hope to get things fully tested on at least one more
platform before it goes in.