Re: [PATCH] calls: Introduce cxx17_empty_base_field_p [PR94383]

[Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Given what was said on irc about DECL_NAME not necessarily being
> significant for DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls, would it be better to drop
> this part of the check?

My preference was have it as narrow as possible for the time being,
because we are shortly before release.
We can replace it with an assertion or whatever later.
Perhaps even the predicate should check for non-NULL and non-zero
TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (field)).

        Jakub