On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 09/12/2017 12:48 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > I'd be concerned about the possibility of a qsort implementation that
> > calls the comparison function with two pointers to the same object (as far
> > as I can tell, it's valid for qsort to do that).
On 09/12/2017 12:48 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
I'd be concerned about the possibility of a qsort implementation that
calls the comparison function with two pointers to the same object (as far
as I can tell, it's valid for qsort to do that). That is, I think you
need to check for the two DECLs bein
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 09/12/2017 12:06 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> > > This patch removes that checking, and also asserts that when we see
> > > identically named decls, exactly one is a TYPE_DECL.
> >
> > When do you get T
On 09/12/2017 12:06 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
This patch removes that checking, and also asserts that when we see
identically named decls, exactly one is a TYPE_DECL.
When do you get TYPE_DECLs here, for C? I wouldn't expect them to be
possible.
o
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Joseph,
> in moving field_decl_cmp to the C FE, I noticed it checks for NULL DECL_NAMES.
> Those don't occur.
To be clear: they don't occur in the case where field_decl_cmp is used;
they can occur in other cases.
> This patch removes that checking, a
Joseph,
in moving field_decl_cmp to the C FE, I noticed it checks for NULL
DECL_NAMES. Those don't occur.
This patch removes that checking, and also asserts that when we see
identically named decls, exactly one is a TYPE_DECL.
ok?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
2017-09-12 Nathan Sidwell
* c
