------- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-24 19:44 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Seems like by design, see tree-pretty-print.c:print_call_name
Thanks for pointing me at the right place.
> Likely for printing prettier member function names. IMHO we should just
> drop this function on the floor
I wouldn't go as far as dropping the whole function, but at least the part
concerning COMPONENT_REF seems pretty braindead to me. I'd propose to just drop
this and replace it by something more sane, like here:
Index: gcc/tree-pretty-print.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-pretty-print.c (revision 151053)
+++ gcc/tree-pretty-print.c (working copy)
@@ -2705,19 +2705,6 @@ print_call_name (pretty_printer *buffer,
dump_generic_node (buffer, TREE_OPERAND (op0, 2), 0, flags, false);
break;
- case COMPONENT_REF:
- /* The function is a pointer contained in a structure. */
- if (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0)) == INDIRECT_REF ||
- TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0)) == VAR_DECL)
- dump_function_name (buffer, TREE_OPERAND (op0, 1), flags);
- else
- dump_generic_node (buffer, TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0), 0, flags, false);
- /* else
- We can have several levels of structures and a function
- pointer inside. This is not implemented yet... */
- /* NIY;*/
- break;
-
case ARRAY_REF:
if (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0)) == VAR_DECL)
dump_function_name (buffer, TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0), flags);
@@ -2725,6 +2712,7 @@ print_call_name (pretty_printer *buffer,
dump_generic_node (buffer, op0, 0, flags, false);
break;
+ case COMPONENT_REF:
case SSA_NAME:
case OBJ_TYPE_REF:
dump_generic_node (buffer, op0, 0, flags, false);
This seems to do the right thing (also for multiply nested function pointers as
in comment #1). Regtesting now ...
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2009-08-24 09:21:23 |2009-08-24 19:44:09
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41149
