On 03/10/2011 09:56 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
While looking at the history, it occurred to me that
COMPLETE_OR_UNBOUND_ARRAY_TYPE_P is a better test than TYPE_SIZE in the
type_hash_eq change, so I'm going to make that tweak to the patch
OK, apparently this was a bad idea; it caused 48069. So I
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> In this testcase, when we first declare the myvectypes and mytype3,
> vector has not been instantiated, so we mark the array, and the
> pointer to the array, for structural equality comparison. When we actually
> go to instantiate mytype3, we
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 04:56 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> Ugh. Why do we call layout_type on arrays with incomplete element type
>> at all?
>
> layout_type has been called from the language-independent build_array_type
> since the dawn of revisi
On 03/10/2011 04:56 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ugh. Why do we call layout_type on arrays with incomplete element type
at all?
layout_type has been called from the language-independent
build_array_type since the dawn of revision control.
I suppose the array type is still considered un-layo
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> In this testcase, when we first declare the myvectypes and mytype3,
> vector has not been instantiated, so we mark the array, and the
> pointer to the array, for structural equality comparison. When we actually
> go to instantiate mytype3, w
