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_CODE of
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
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
languages
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
