On 09/02/2011 10:38 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Jason Merrill<ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
I wonder what would break if C++ just set TYPE_SIZE to the as-base size?
Good question. Probably argument passing, as the as-base size wouldn't
get a proper mode assigned form layout_type then(?) for small structs?
Classes for which the as-base size is different are passed by invisible
reference, so that wouldn't be an issue.
But layout_decl would get the wrong size for variables and fields of the
type, so that won't work.
Perhaps it's time to get serious about the change I talked about in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488#c42 ...
Jason
