On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 12:21 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 01:00 -0800, pins...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> > >> No I don't think we want this at all. C++ is clear here. In fact we > >> don't turn on werror for stage 1 for this exact reason. Rather it > >> might be better to check if that flag to turn off the warning and use > >> that. Also this warning is a bad warning for standard c++ code; clang > >> is wrong to enable by default. > > > > Yes, warnings have to be disabled when compiling GCC, since clang > > complains about many more things. > > Anyway, these issues aside ... > > > >> No I don't think we want this at all > > > > ... why is that? What's the purpose/benefit in C++ of repeatedly > > writing "struct X*" if X is already a known type? > > There is none, dropping those is fine (but please also look at the > no longer necessary typedefs
There are a few typedefs: function.h: -struct ipa_opt_pass_d; -typedef struct ipa_opt_pass_d *ipa_opt_pass; +class ipa_opt_pass_d; +typedef ipa_opt_pass_d *ipa_opt_pass; cgraph.h: -typedef struct varpool_node *varpool_node_ptr; +class varpool_node; +typedef varpool_node *varpool_node_ptr; but they are used somewhere else. I could replace the uses of those typedefs in a follow up patch, but for now I wanted to keep the changes minimal. > and rename structs accordingly). Sorry, I don't get it. Do you have an example in mind? Cheers, Oleg
