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
