Jason,
Are there any other changes you want me to make to the patch?
I leave this weekend for the WG14 meeting and would like to
get this change finalized and hopefully committed before then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg00410.html
Thanks
Martin
On 10/06/2016 02:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I'm asking you to clarify the logic. It seems that your change to
fldtype affects these two tests:
if (eltype == fldtype || TYPE_UNNAMED_P (eltype))
if (TREE_CODE (fldtype) != ARRAY_TYPE)
...but this is extremely subtle. It would be a lot clearer to check fld
for FIELD_DECL or TYPE_DECL explicitly rather than relying on these
places that treat fldtype as a type to do the right thing because you've
obfuscated it. But I'm tired of going back and forth on this, so here's
a patch.
And now that I notice it, there seems to be no reason to handle typedefs
deep in the code for handling fields, it's simpler to handle them up top.
I'm sorry you're frustrated. I have no problem changing the code to
the way you wrote it. I agree it's more streamlined though I would
be hard pressed to consider the improvement to be worth the time and
effort we both put into it. I'm also not sure I see how someone can
be expected to write the code exactly the way you want based on little
more than questions about why the code does what it does. I had no
idea what your expectation was for the fldtype variable for instance.
Attached is the integrated patch.
Martin
