This is the mail archive of the 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)

On 12/5/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:21:45PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> What I'm a little concerned about is whether if we ask for a const variant
> of some type, we can accept a const-variant of any type that has the
> same TYPE_CANONICAL value.  I don't know enough about the relevant language
> issues to know if we can, but I suspect so (though not if we allow TYPE_ALIGN
> to be different; however it's hard to see how those are "the same type").

If I've followed the discussion right, we don't want to do this.  Those
two might be equivalent from the language point of view (in fact I
think they must be), but we still want to distinguish them for debug

Good point. Yes, that's yet another reason that my proposed patch does *not* replace types with their canonical types: it only uses canonical types for comparing equality of types from the language perspective. The patch doesn't affect debug information or error messages at all.


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