On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:41:20AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:10:21PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:28:36PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> > I found a problem with this patch--we can't call
> >> > do_warn_duplicated_branches in
> >> > build_conditional_expr, because that way the C++-specific codes might
> >> > leak into
> >> > the hasher. Instead, I should use operand_equal_p, I think. Let me
> >> > rework
> >> > that part of the patch.
>
> Hmm, is there a reason not to use operand_equal_p for
> do_warn_duplicated_branches as well? I'm concerned about hash
> collisions leading to false positives.
If the hashing function is iterative_hash_expr / inchash::add_expr, then
that is supposed to pair together with operand_equal_p, we even have
checking verification of that.
Jakub
