Re: TYPE_BINFO and canonical types at LTO

[Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Richard Biener wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > Yeah, ok.  But we treat those types (B and C) TBAA equivalent because
> > > structurally they are the same ;)  Luckily C has a "proper" field
> > > for its base (proper means that offset and size are correct as well
> > > as the type).  It indeed has DECL_ARTIFICIAL set and yes, we treat
> > > those as "real" fields when doing the structural comparison.
> > 
> > Yep, the difference is that depending if C or D win, we will end up walking the
> > BINFO or not.  So we should not depend on the BINFo walk for correctness.
> > > 
> > > More interesting is of course when we can re-use tail-padding in
> > > one but not the other (works as expected - not merged).
> > 
> > Yep.
> > > 
> > > struct A { A (); short x; bool a;};
> > > struct C:A { bool b; };
> > > struct B {struct A a; bool b;};
> > > struct C *p2;
> > > struct B *p1;
> > > int
> > > t()
> > > {
> > >   p1->a.a = 2;
> > >   return p2->a;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > > Yes, zero sized classes are those having no fields (but other stuff, 
> > > > type decls, bases etc.)
> > > 
> > > Yeah, but TBAA obviously doesn't care about type decls and bases.
> > 
> > So I guess the conclussion is that the BINFO walk in alias.c is pointless?
> 
> Yes.  But as I said - I remember being there and proposing to remove
> it.  Some N > 5 years ago or so and it was either rejected or it didn't
> work out ;)

Btw, a bootstrap & regtest worked fine with removing that loop
(not that this proves anything).

Richard.