On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:56:30PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:53:05PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:44:21PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > I don't think so, the three codes are adjacent so we should be generating
> > > "(unsigned)(code -
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:44:21PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 04:11 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >Sorry, I changed my mind. Since QUAL_UNION_TYPE is Ada-only thing and
> >we check (RECORD_TYPE || UNION_TYPE) in a lot of places in the C FE,
> >introducing RECORD_OR_UNION_TYPE_P every
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:53:05PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:44:21PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 11/13/2015 04:11 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >Sorry, I changed my mind. Since QUAL_UNION_TYPE is Ada-only thing and
> > >we check (RECORD_TYPE || UNION_TYPE) in a
On 11/13/2015 04:11 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Sorry, I changed my mind. Since QUAL_UNION_TYPE is Ada-only thing and
we check (RECORD_TYPE || UNION_TYPE) in a lot of places in the C FE,
introducing RECORD_OR_UNION_TYPE_P everywhere would unnecessarily slow
things down.
I don't think so, the thre
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 07:16:08AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > + && (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (field)) == RECORD_TYPE
> > > + || TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (field)) == UNION_TYPE))
> >
> > This is RECORD_OR_UNION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (field)).
>
> I based this code on the code in lookup_field ri
On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 07:57 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Probably coming too late, sorry.
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:08:36PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > index 4335a87..eb4e1fc 100644
> > --- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> > +++ b/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> > @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COP
Probably coming too late, sorry.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:08:36PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> index 4335a87..eb4e1fc 100644
> --- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> +++ b/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
> #include "c-family/c-ubsan.h"
> #include "cil
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 23:44 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 06:47 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > The typename suggestion seems to be at least somewhat controversial,
> > whereas (I hope) the misspelled field names suggestion is more
> > acceptable.
> >
> > Hence I'm focusing on the field na
On 10/30/2015 06:47 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
The typename suggestion seems to be at least somewhat controversial,
whereas (I hope) the misspelled field names suggestion is more
acceptable.
Hence I'm focusing on the field name lookup for now; other uses of the
algorithm (e.g. the typename lookup
