From: Philip Herron <philip.her...@embecosm.com> We are not fully setting TYPE_CANONICAL yet but we don't need to be as strict as the C++ front-end yet. param_use_canonical_types is a command line option we are not using either.
gcc/rust/ChangeLog: * backend/rust-tree.cc (comptypes): Remove some C++ specific checks in Rust const folder for now. Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on master. --- gcc/rust/backend/rust-tree.cc | 22 +--------------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/rust/backend/rust-tree.cc b/gcc/rust/backend/rust-tree.cc index d79cd96f011..d2ddcfd2957 100644 --- a/gcc/rust/backend/rust-tree.cc +++ b/gcc/rust/backend/rust-tree.cc @@ -2916,27 +2916,7 @@ comptypes (tree t1, tree t2, int strict) perform a deep check. */ return structural_comptypes (t1, t2, strict); - if (flag_checking && param_use_canonical_types) - { - bool result = structural_comptypes (t1, t2, strict); - - if (result && TYPE_CANONICAL (t1) != TYPE_CANONICAL (t2)) - /* The two types are structurally equivalent, but their - canonical types were different. This is a failure of the - canonical type propagation code.*/ - internal_error ( - "canonical types differ for identical types %qT and %qT", t1, t2); - else if (!result && TYPE_CANONICAL (t1) == TYPE_CANONICAL (t2)) - /* Two types are structurally different, but the canonical - types are the same. This means we were over-eager in - assigning canonical types. */ - internal_error ( - "same canonical type node for different types %qT and %qT", t1, - t2); - - return result; - } - if (!flag_checking && param_use_canonical_types) + if (!flag_checking) return TYPE_CANONICAL (t1) == TYPE_CANONICAL (t2); else return structural_comptypes (t1, t2, strict); -- 2.39.1