From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DD5A3858CDA for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:01:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 1DD5A3858CDA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 1DD5A3858CDA Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::530 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718640077; cv=none; b=P+SMjtmW1+7jP90iJH0e7BLpjMgVL49ecAOhoh/5VzavrSyB/ugPZKX+dq57rbY/oySbf558xbFVrZpXmJzk9p1nQmtnmgALpRa5wHqnmmW6wdmcjZnpVy1s1irvvSsEaY+S+5G7TSOl26edwmq1vAnUIhrnJmjfz3fHK9vMmvA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718640077; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EW35ze960/r+fowyF03f41hsyrZwtRZTip7tpmqzFXY=; h=DKIM-Signature:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To; b=opZSWbJHFp648Czl4+ofm6k8mFtVLvSk0wALxEkzeV0d80KNftO/cmw77EORYcjvIM7VvMVGPjc9n1HAi6VJvuX36XU5t5Tg6iaBNhyIashWJrnPGTsJ8m9G8ywzh1WZtXMoNHFZKeg7oKvMPww9x1wrpTPX1ycJBKNlBArNML8= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-57c61165af6so5896310a12.2 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:01:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1718640074; x=1719244874; darn=gcc.gnu.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cJOPelh1mojiP8fFjo4Nm2OO4AIK8rU8Klfy/WA4GQc=; b=YtzJ9Dwh5MfnyObk4DMMgjewgLOhgnDXv3rgfrhbTg32GEHDzWp+Nu4Af5hkGksO3J FX1favAvQWT1y2Afk5AKoieAAYNqpmPsbHaIPGEdmTcNXjV4eXbsczdaTUux4+tur4FF YK/rDBu7cosHA80laPiVWjezwfTo05vb73AgtQs/iln/HqmEMbYe5tUxIaPTP79QdyEc ONBzAv+aF0+SmnsAxISEf1K77Y/Aimb6KzMhwn2UtIwMRbAr757hXvGi4R+YAnBaN5k2 kJ0MRX9p791DFjlL05Hv7keaZFEAR4QCKGJCXyLrBzxb2tYVM+EJck0Ds/l0NhGdNTNR ZRQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718640074; x=1719244874; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=cJOPelh1mojiP8fFjo4Nm2OO4AIK8rU8Klfy/WA4GQc=; b=VNUJUZHyCLRfTKTS7c3Trd4nJMIlnAf+qNt/vbSAIQOiwaQgS8vd4TEzJErfyDqwDn gPYfJveKcJU2xKoNGL39+8p/PP4SfFVkdqqfxnLsFXXrYK/VpUpFqD1nN8QEjs4EnrLc n4JBGQTLkaMtHvizh2o/rlsRjz0suCoQAYyu3DmBk2lxqR8HWxasawZW1q2EWJ83QKvJ 6FVoEUYjPC/vDikfRgL3jB2PATyS7us7hQhN9McLxldHALbXYN0u8WBXekzs2QtU2M0P tLsh4WRr7xAdrWhIc1k4BNIFpeW/2W7UbIVT3b4mvK8gQBGD891waAbk/8NMFbQKl7Po KyGw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW3KLvr6oPkkVzdM8G5uL47s12YhkM7x0fX+LaOzgW1ipTfquSz+TjI27rrbc7DD85wdj8I040YcoBhx9ctA7k= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxmrE3Nle+ffotG8/oVdujDa/7t7cPJptH+XVb3a/dsXuXyKpYw HUuFvZGaeT1mnMpF2ucK2GXZ2s71yOrBiFygnxijMyA5EznCL+jLP2v4kpkj7A9hdpKN7U35K4J akwkxscU+1fjjdU9OnaqdVagUHYc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHlUlgDoDPhBjg/aL1QZq64cW3Gc8GjoIIcDzgHNTnpHKigm0gHxrplHK56Z0AyUdIhTELtrAJTr1M9T3U8h1I= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:af08:b0:a6e:46ab:9a9b with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a6f60d1e0e8mr705703766b.31.1718640073722; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:01:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <147dbd85269a23623a7a33a862c1cfa4232aae84.camel@tugraz.at> In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:01:02 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: check_qualified_type To: Richard Biener Cc: Martin Uecker , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Joseph Myers , Jakub Jelinek Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 07:02, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > > > > I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type > > does exactly. The direct comparison of TYPE_NAMES seems incorrect > > for C and its use is c_update_type_canonical then causes > > PR114930 and PR115502. In the later function I think > > it is not really needed and I guess one could simply remove > > it, but I wonder if it works incorrectly in other cases > > too? > > TYPE_NAMES is compared because IIRC typedefs are recorded as variants > and 'const T' isn't the same as 'const int' with typedef int T. Presumably it's also relevant for this example: typedef signed int sint; struct S { int i : 2; sint s : 2; }; Here it's impl-defined whether i is signed, but s must be signed.