> Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> writes: > > >> > >> OK. I wonder if we can/should carve off some bits to note > >> type_with_linkage_p and type_in_anonymous_namespace_p in the tree > >> itself? At least in type_common there's plenty of bits left. > >> Not sure how expensive / reliable (non-C++?) those tests otherwise are. > > > > It also makes me wonder if other languages (D, Ada, go, Fortran...) have > > concept of anonymous namespace types - that is types that are never > > interoperable with types from another translation unit. That would > > justify the extra flag pretty well. > > > > Similarly for types with name mangling defined. Both these bits can be > > made indpendent of C++. > > Go has the concept, but it implements it by mangling the names with the > package-path, which is required to be unique within an application (the > package-path is normally the path used to find an import, so it is > inherently unique within a file system).
Currently we implement ODR names only for C++. If Go has similar concept (i.e. types has mangled names and equal names implies equal types acros sunits), we may want to implemnt it too and improve TBAA for go programs.. I wonder is there something I can read about go types and mangling? This would be good motivation to make ODR type machinery indepenent of C++. Until now it was only used to drive devirtualization (which needs BINFOs that are not done by go FE either) and produce ODR violation warnings (that I am not sure if would make sense for go), but with TBAA I think I can take a look into this. Honza > > Ian
