On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > and from looking at SET_TYPE_RM_VALUEs definition it doesn't > > touch TYPE_MAX_VALUE. So TYPE_MAX_VALUE is as set from > > make_unsigned_type (8) which should set it to 255, not 1. > > > > So ... how can it be a no-op? > > Look a few lines below. :-) In gigi we manipulate both full-fledged Ada > types > with RM bounds and GCC types without RM bounds so it's more convenient to > have > a single accessor macro.
/* For numerical types, this is the upper bound of the type, i.e. the RM upper bound for language-defined types and the GCC upper bound for others. */ #undef TYPE_MAX_VALUE #define TYPE_MAX_VALUE(NODE) \ (TYPE_RM_MAX_VALUE (NODE) \ ? TYPE_RM_MAX_VALUE (NODE) : TYPE_GCC_MAX_VALUE (NODE)) Ick ;) > > Heh ;) At least Fortran doesn't play games with TYPE_PRECISION ;) > > Right, but TYPE_PRECISION isn't prescribed by the C ABI, is it? More > seriously > I think that your suggestion is the way to go and I made the same when we > were > fiddling with boolean_type_node in free_lang_data: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg00966.html > > So fine with me, as long as all the languages play by the same rules. Yeah, it'll be a (slow) migration process though. I'll eventually work on the Fortran parts. Richard.
