From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-293832-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10610 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2011 13:55:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 10602 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2011 13:55:46 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:55:29 +0000
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p57DtSmf019204	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:55:28 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn-113-53.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.53])	by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p57DtR1M008027;	Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:55:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4DEE2DCF.7020905@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:55:00 -0000
From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
CC: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>,        gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: RFA (fold): PATCH for c++/49290 (folding *(T*)(ar+10))
References: <4DEDB98F.6010508@redhat.com> <BANLkTimU_JPKgaqvhtb+m7fbDyTL340YJQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimU_JPKgaqvhtb+m7fbDyTL340YJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00517.txt.bz2

On 06/07/2011 06:19 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I _think_ that you can unconditionally change the code to do
>
>    TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (t1) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (t2)
>    &&  TYPE_QUALS (t1) == TYPE_QUALS (t2)
>
> now, I'm not sure if for the testcase T and unsigned differ in qualifiers.
> Do they?

Hmm, I think with the changes I made to the testcase they end up with 
the same qualifiers.  But for constexpr I need to handle them having 
different qualifiers, too.

Jason