On 05/26/15 15:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 05/25/15 21:18, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, are you seeing a case where TYPE_CANONICAL (to_type) has the may_alias
attribute?
Yes. This occurs when the newly created TRCAA pointer is to a self-canonical
type. The
else if (TYPE_CANONICAL
On 05/26/2015 03:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Ok, so IIUC a canonical pointer to a may_alias type should have TRCAA
but a canonical can_alias_all pointer to a non-may_alias type should not
have TRCAA? (i.e. one where CAN_ALIAS_ALL was passed true). Or are you
saying that no canonical pointers
On 05/27/15 12:20, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/26/2015 03:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Ok, so IIUC a canonical pointer to a may_alias type should have TRCAA
but a canonical can_alias_all pointer to a non-may_alias type should not
have TRCAA? (i.e. one where CAN_ALIAS_ALL was passed true). Or are
On 05/25/15 21:18, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/25/2015 04:55 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
else if (TYPE_CANONICAL (to_type) != to_type)
TYPE_CANONICAL (t)
= build_reference_type_for_mode (TYPE_CANONICAL (to_type),
mode, false);
But we're passing 'false' in
This patch addresses 66270, another case where may_alias disrupted the canonical
type system. We ICE as TYPE_CANONICALs differ, but comptypes think they are the
same.
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether pointers that differ only in
TYPE_REF_CAN_ALIAS_ALL are the same canonical
On 05/25/2015 04:55 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
This patch addresses 66270, another case where may_alias disrupted the
canonical type system. We ICE as TYPE_CANONICALs differ, but comptypes
think they are the same.
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether pointers that differ
only in
