On 20/09/18 16:56, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
Ok, looks good.
Thanks.
There are some other remaining incorrect uses of integer_type_node (at least one visible in the diff), but that can be done as a separate patch (not saying you must do it as a precondition for anything, though it would of course be nice if you would. :) )
I'm not confident I can tell what should be integer_type_node, and what should not?
Once it gets to build_call_expr_loc it's clear that the types should match the function signature, but the intermediate values' types are not obvious to me.
Andrew
