[PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)

[Doug Gregor]

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?

> >> 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.

  Cheers,
  Doug