https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #28 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #25)
> Wonder if it was suppose to be something like:
>
>
> /* Vector pair and vector quad support. */
> if (TARGET_EXTRA_BUILTINS)
> {
> - tree oi_uns_type = make_unsigned_type (256);
> - vector_pair_type_node = build_distinct_type_copy (oi_uns_type);
> + vector_pair_type_node = make_unsigned_type (256);
> SET_TYPE_MODE (vector_pair_type_node, POImode);
> layout_type (vector_pair_type_node);
> lang_hooks.types.register_builtin_type (vector_pair_type_node,
> "__vector_pair");
>
> - tree xi_uns_type = make_unsigned_type (512);
> - vector_quad_type_node = build_distinct_type_copy (xi_uns_type);
> + vector_quad_type_node = make_unsigned_type (512);
> SET_TYPE_MODE (vector_quad_type_node, PXImode);
> layout_type (vector_quad_type_node);
> lang_hooks.types.register_builtin_type (vector_quad_type_node,
So this passed bootstrap and regtesting with no regressions.
Is this really the correct fix? Don't we want a distinct type compared to the
unsigned type returned from make_unsigned_type()?
