On Thu, 21 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > Code quality does not seem to be affected too much,
> > > which I suppose is partly thanks to that tree-ssa-alias.c pointer hack.
> > > My
> > > main point was to cleanup the hack about comparing only TYPE
> On Wed, 20 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Richard,
> > this is my attempt to make sense of TYPE_CANONICAL at LTO. My
> > undrestanding is
> > that gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p needs to return true for all pairs
> > of
> > types that are considered compatible across compilation unit
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Richard,
> this is my attempt to make sense of TYPE_CANONICAL at LTO. My undrestanding
> is
> that gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p needs to return true for all pairs of
> types that are considered compatible across compilation unit for any of
> langu
Richard,
this is my attempt to make sense of TYPE_CANONICAL at LTO. My undrestanding is
that gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p needs to return true for all pairs of
types that are considered compatible across compilation unit for any of
languages we support (and in a sane way for cross language,
