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)


Doug Gregor wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.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?

Sorry, yes.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713


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