This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)
Doug Gregor wrote:
> 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.
>> Good idea.
> You're referring to eliminating the 1-bit flag for
> TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY, and instead using TYPE_CANONICAL ==
> NULL_TREE, right?
(650) 331-3385 x713