+ if (odr_or_derived_type_p (t1) && odr_or_derived_type_p (t2)
+ && !odr_types_equivalent_p (t1, t2))
+ return true;
+ return !types_compatible_p (t1, t2);
+}
+
+
+/* Types T1 and T2 was found to be incompatible in a context they can't
+ (either used to declare a symbol of same assembler name or unified by
+ ODR rule). We already output warning about this, but if possible, output
+ extra information on how the types mismatch.
+
+ This is hard to do in general. We basically handle the common cases.
+
+ If LOC1 and LOC2 are meaningful locations, use it in the case the types
+ themselves do no thave one.*/
+
+void
+warn_types_mismatch (tree t1, tree t2, location_t loc1, location_t loc2)
+{
+ /* Location of type is known only if it has TYPE_NAME and the name is
+ TYPE_DECL. */
+ location_t loc_t1 = TYPE_NAME (t1) && TREE_CODE (TYPE_NAME (t1)) == TYPE_DECL
+ ? DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (TYPE_NAME (t1))
+ : UNKNOWN_LOCATION;
+ location_t loc_t2 = TYPE_NAME (t2) && TREE_CODE (TYPE_NAME (t2)) == TYPE_DECL
+ ? DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (TYPE_NAME (t2))
+ : UNKNOWN_LOCATION;
+ bool loc_t2_useful = false;
+
+ /* With LTO it is a common case that the location of both types match.
+ See if T2 has a location that is different from T1. If so, we will
+ inform user about the location.
+ Do not consider the location passed to us in LOC1/LOC2 as those are
+ already output. */
+ if (loc_t2 > BUILTINS_LOCATION && loc_t2 != loc_t1)
+ {
+ if (loc_t1 <= BUILTINS_LOCATION)
+ loc_t2_useful = true;
+ else
+ {
+ expanded_location xloc1 = expand_location (loc_t1);
+ expanded_location xloc2 = expand_location (loc_t2);
+
+ if (strcmp (xloc1.file, xloc2.file)
+ || xloc1.line != xloc2.line
+ || xloc1.column != xloc2.column)
+ loc_t2_useful = true;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (loc_t1 <= BUILTINS_LOCATION)
+ loc_t1 = loc1;
+ if (loc_t2 <= BUILTINS_LOCATION)
+ loc_t2 = loc2;
+
+ location_t loc = loc_t1 <= BUILTINS_LOCATION ? loc_t2 : loc_t1;
+
+ /* It is a quite common bug to reference anonymous namespace type in
+ non-anonymous namespace class. */
+ if ((type_with_linkage_p (t1) && type_in_anonymous_namespace_p (t1))
+ || (type_with_linkage_p (t2) && type_in_anonymous_namespace_p (t2)))
+ {
+ if (type_with_linkage_p (t1) && !type_in_anonymous_namespace_p (t1))
+ {
+ std::swap (t1, t2);
+ std::swap (loc_t1, loc_t2);
+ }
+ gcc_assert (TYPE_NAME (t1) && TYPE_NAME (t2)
+ && TREE_CODE (TYPE_NAME (t1)) == TYPE_DECL
+ && TREE_CODE (TYPE_NAME (t2)) == TYPE_DECL);
+ /* Most of the time, the type names will match, do not be unnecesarily
+ verbose. */
+ if (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_NAME (TYPE_NAME (t1)))
+ != IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_NAME (TYPE_NAME (t2))))
+ inform (loc_t1,
+ "type %qT defined in anonymous namespace can not match "
+ "type %qT across the translation unit boundary",
+ t1, t2);
+ else
+ inform (loc_t1,
+ "type %qT defined in anonymous namespace can not match "
+ "across the translation unit boundary",
+ t1);
+ if (loc_t2_useful)
+ inform (loc_t2,
+ "the incompatible type defined in another translation unit");
+ return;
+ }
+ /* If types have mangled ODR names and they are different, it is most
+ informative to output those.
+ This also covers types defined in different namespaces. */
+ if (TYPE_NAME (t1) && TYPE_NAME (t2)
+ && TREE_CODE (TYPE_NAME (t1)) == TYPE_DECL
+ && TREE_CODE (TYPE_NAME (t2)) == TYPE_DECL
+ && DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME_SET_P (TYPE_NAME (t1))
+ && DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME_SET_P (TYPE_NAME (t2))
+ && DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME (TYPE_NAME (t1))
+ != DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME (TYPE_NAME (t2)))
+ {
+ char *name1 = xstrdup (cplus_demangle
+ (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME (TYPE_NAME (t1))),
+ DMGL_PARAMS | DMGL_ANSI | DMGL_TYPES));
+ char *name2 = cplus_demangle
+ (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME (TYPE_NAME (t2))),
+ DMGL_PARAMS | DMGL_ANSI | DMGL_TYPES);
+ if (name1 && name2 && strcmp (name1, name2))
+ {
+ inform (loc_t1,
+ "type name %qs should match type name %qs",
+ name1, name2);
+ if (loc_t2_useful)
+ inform (loc_t2,
+ "the incompatible type is defined here");
+ free (name1);
+ return;
+ }
+ free (name1);
+ }
+ /* A tricky case are compound types. Often they appear the same in source
+ code and the mismatch is dragged in by type they are build from.
+ Look for those differences in subtypes and try to be informative. In other
+ cases just output nothing because the source code is probably different
+ and in this case we already output a all necessary info. */