On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 06:57:12PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > I'm going to work around this by using TYPE_SIZE, but it would be nice > if somebody could explain the purpose for this behavior (if it's a bug, > i'll file a bug report). I would imagine we don't have truly empty > things in C++, so you could simply assert that TREE_INT_CST_LOW of > whatever you are setting DECL_SIZE to is not 0 and find these that way.
It is most definitely a bug. I'm surprised about the 0 instead of a NULL there. The later would easily be explicable by forgetting to call layout_decl. My only guess is that this decl had an incomplete type at some point. Is the function in question a template? I could see as how maybe we need to call relayout_decl after instantiation, or simply re-order how the parm_decls are created. r~
