On 1 May 2012 15:46, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> +static tree expr_original_type (tree expr)
>
> That should be
>
> static tree
> expr_original_type (tree expr)
>
> with a comment explaining the semantics of the function.
>
>> +{
>> + STRIP_NOPS (expr);
>
> Are you sure you want STRIP_NOPS rather than STRIP_SIGN_NOPS here? If so,
> could you ensure there are comments explaining why removing sign changes
> is safe in this context?
For getting the original enumeral type of a expr, why would sign changes matter?
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
