On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:26 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > > While moving FIELD_DECL to it's own substruct, the following questions > > have come up. I figured one of you might know: > > > > 1. Do we need DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME on FIELD_DECL? I can't think of a > > place where we would actually try to *output* a FIELD_DECL directly, but > > maybe i've missed something. I ask because the C frontend tests > > decl_assembler_name on field decl, but never sets it on them. > > > > Related to this: > > > > 2. Do we allow setting the section of a FIELD_DECL, so that > > DECL_SECTION_NAME on FIELD_DECL is necessary? > > We should need neither DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME nor DECL_SECTION_NAME. If we > do, that's a bug in whatever is using them -- but I don't know how hard > it would be to fix.
Only one place was attempting to set them (the C++ FE, and the patch removed it), and one place was attempting to verify them (this was the gcc_assert you didn't like :P) > In GCC, things that look like fields, but are > really variables, like C++ static data members or anonymous union > members, should be represented as VAR_DECLs. >
