[PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)

[Doug Gregor]

On 12/5/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> 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
> info.

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.

  Cheers,
  Doug