on 2022/9/1 22:17, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 9/1/22 3:29 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>> I have no idea why ptr_vector_*_type would behave differently here than >>> build_pointer_type (vector_*_type_node). Using the build_pointer_type() >>> fixed it for me, so that's why I went with it. :-) Maybe this is a bug >>> in lto??? >> >> Thanks for your time to reproduce this! >> >> The only difference is that ptr_vector_*_type are built from the >> qualified_type based on vector_*_type_node, instead of directly from >> vector_*_type_node. I'm interested to have a further look at this later. > > If you look into this, please let me know. I'd like to know what you > find out.
I just filed PR106833 for it. BR, Kewen
