Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This assumes, of course, that we can build an equivalence set for > types. I think that we need to make that work in the middle-end, and > force the front-ends to conform. As someone else mentioned, there are > horrific cases in C like a[] being compatible with both a[5] and a[10] > but a[5] and a[10] not being compatible with each other, and similarly > f() is compatible with f(int) and f(float) but the latter two are not > compatible with each other.
I don't think these cases are serious problems; they're compatible types, not equivalent types. You don't need to check compatibility as often as equivalence. Certainly, in the big C++ test cases, Mike is right that templates are the killer, and they're you're generally testing equivalence. So, if you separate same_type_p from compatible_type_p, and make same_type_p fast, then that's still a big win. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
