https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #30) > On 10/19/20 6:40 PM, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 > > > > --- Comment #28 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #25) > >> Wonder if it was suppose to be something like: > >> > >> > >> /* Vector pair and vector quad support. */ > >> if (TARGET_EXTRA_BUILTINS) > >> { > >> - tree oi_uns_type = make_unsigned_type (256); > >> - vector_pair_type_node = build_distinct_type_copy (oi_uns_type); > >> + vector_pair_type_node = make_unsigned_type (256); > >> SET_TYPE_MODE (vector_pair_type_node, POImode); > >> layout_type (vector_pair_type_node); > >> lang_hooks.types.register_builtin_type (vector_pair_type_node, > >> "__vector_pair"); > >> > >> - tree xi_uns_type = make_unsigned_type (512); > >> - vector_quad_type_node = build_distinct_type_copy (xi_uns_type); > >> + vector_quad_type_node = make_unsigned_type (512); > >> SET_TYPE_MODE (vector_quad_type_node, PXImode); > >> layout_type (vector_quad_type_node); > >> lang_hooks.types.register_builtin_type (vector_quad_type_node, > > So this passed bootstrap and regtesting with no regressions. > > > > Is this really the correct fix? Yes. > > Don't we want a distinct type compared to the > > unsigned type returned from make_unsigned_type()? But make_unsigned_type already returns a distinct type. It's a low-level worker unless for example make_nonstandard_integer_type which caches types. > I actually dont know, Richi might have to comment on that.. Nothing was > referring to the original unsigned_type that was created? Its just > orphaned? > > tree > make_unsigned_type (int precision) > { > tree type = make_node (INTEGER_TYPE); > > TYPE_PRECISION (type) = precision; > > fixup_unsigned_type (type); > return type; > } > > > All it does is create a new node, then fixup goes and creates the MIN > and MAX fields and sets a few other little things. The only reason > we saw the old unsigned type is we were picking it up from the MAX and > MIN fields,... which were set to the original type. > > it sure *seems* like that is a resonable fix. Its not like that first > node is creating a system wide node? > > our type system is a bit, umm, flakey, but it seems reasonable to me. > :-) And its in the spirit of what his patch was doing... > > What could possibly go wrong? :-) :-) Nothing. > Andrew
