Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>>
>> The existing check should work ok with lto. If not then we should
>figure out why we do not merge the main variants properly.
>Hmm, adding:
>Index: tree.c
>===================================================================
>--- tree.c (revision 198796)
>+++ tree.c (working copy)
>@@ -11572,6 +11572,12 @@ get_binfo_at_offset (tree binfo, HOST_WI
>
> if (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (expected_type))
> return binfo;
>+ else
>+ if (types_compatible_p (type, expected_type))
>+ {
>+ debug_tree (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type));
>+ debug_tree (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (expected_type));
>+ }
> if (offset < 0)
> return NULL_TREE;
>
>@@ -11605,6 +11611,12 @@ get_binfo_at_offset (tree binfo, HOST_WI
> found_binfo = base_binfo;
> break;
> }
>+ else
>+ if (types_compatible_p (TREE_TYPE (base_binfo),
>TREE_TYPE (fld)))
>+ {
>+ debug_tree (TREE_TYPE (base_binfo));
>+ debug_tree (TREE_TYPE (fld));
>+ }
> if (!found_binfo)
> return NULL_TREE;
> binfo = found_binfo;
>
>seems to bring a lot of positives and by quick inspection most of them
>seem
>like same classes. I will try to find some time to debug this more.
>But
>glancing over the the dumps, I see many of them just have different
>name
>spaces. Do we even attempt to merge namespace_decl? How types from
>same
>namespaces in different units are supposed to match?
>
We do not merge namespace decls, which is likely the issue here. My in-progress
tree merging should eventually fix this...
Richard.
>Honza
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>> >Honza
>>
