Ian—is there anything preventing this from getting merged? (I don't have write access.)
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:31 AM Nikhil Benesch <nikhil.bene...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:15 AM Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Ah, I missed that pt is probably a pointer type as well, then the code > > simply aligns the pointed-to type (note dependent on how pt was built > > this seems prone to wreck the TYPE_POINTER_TO/TYPE_NEXT_PTR_TO > > chains which link pointer types to a type. > > Right. In fact, set_placeholder_pointer_type asserts that both pt and tt > are pointer types. > > It's true that, after a call to set_placeholder_pointer_type, pt becomes > a distinct pointer type to T, yet is not part of the > TYPE_POINTER_TO/TYPE_NEXT_PTR_TO chain for T. As far as I can tell, > that's fine. The chain for T remains intact, as placeholder pointer > types are careful to always point to a distinct dummy object (see the > Gcc_backend::placeholder_pointer_type method) that nothing cares about. > The only consequence I see is the increased memory usage of having > multiple distinct but semantically identical pointer types to T. >
