> Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 07:24:06PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> > 2013-05-10 Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> > >> > > >> > * tree.c (get_binfo_at_offset): Use types_compatible_p to compare > >> > types. > >> > > >> > Index: src/gcc/tree.c > >> > =================================================================== > >> > --- src.orig/gcc/tree.c > >> > +++ src/gcc/tree.c > >> > @@ -11483,7 +11483,7 @@ get_binfo_at_offset (tree binfo, HOST_WI > >> > tree fld; > >> > int i; > >> > > >> > - if (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT > >(expected_type)) > >> > + if (types_compatible_p (type, expected_type)) > >> As discussed on lunch, it seems fine to me, but I am not an expert ;) > > This doesn't look good to me. With lto all types that are structurally > equivalent will compare compatible this way. Probably not what you want.
Yep, that was my concern, too. I wonder how to recognize the two types represent the same object. Perhaps by adding an assiciated vtable (via binfos) into the structural match while merging? Honza
