> > On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think we should instead work towards eliminating the get_alias_set > > > > langhook first. The LTO langhook variant contains the same handling, > > > > btw, > > > > so just inline that into get_alias_set and see what remains? > > > > > > I see, i completely missed existence of gimple_get_alias_set. It makes > > > more > > > sense now. > > > > > > Is moving everyting to alias.c realy a desirable thing? If non-C > > > languages do > > > not have this rule, why we want to reduce the code quality when compiling > > > those? > > > > Well, for consistency and for getting rid of one langhook ;) > :) > In a way this particular langhook makes sense to me - TBAA rules are language > specific. > We also may with explicit streaming of the TBAA dag, like LLVM does. > > Anyway, this is the updated patch fixing the Fortran's interoperability with > size_t and signed char. I will send separate patch for the extra lto-symtab > warnings shortly. > > I will be happy looking into the TYPE_CANONICAL (int) to be different from > TYPE_CANONICAL (unsigned int) if that seems desirable. There are two things > that > needs to be solved - hash_canonical_type/gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p > can't > use TYPE_CNAONICAL of subtypes in all cases (that is easy) and we will need > some > way to recognize the conflict in lto-symtab other thanjust comparing > TYPE_CANONICAL > to not warn when a variable is declared signed in Fortran unit and unsigned > in C. > > Bootstrapped/regtested ppc64le-linux. > > * lto/lto.c (hash_canonical_type): Do not hash TYPE_UNSIGNED > of INTEGER_TYPE. > * tree.c (gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p): Do not compare > TYPE_UNSIGNED > of INTEGER_TYPE. > * gimple-expr.c (useless_type_conversion_p): Move INTEGER type handling > ahead the canonical type lookup. > > * gfortran.dg/lto/bind_c-2_0.f90: New testcase > * gfortran.dg/lto/bind_c-2_1.c: New testcase > * gfortran.dg/lto/bind_c-3_0.f90: New testcase > * gfortran.dg/lto/bind_c-3_1.c: New testcase > * gfortran.dg/lto/bind_c-4_0.f90: New testcase > * gfortran.dg/lto/bind_c-4_1.c: New testcase
Hi, I would like to ping this. There are still few things to fix to make our merging compliant at least for C/C++/Fortran rules (the array bounds for Fortran and union ordering for C I believe) and I would like to progress on this. Honza
