> You appear to be duplicating the documentation of an unrelated attribute.
Merge glitch, now fixed, thanks. > What happens when typeof is applied to a field with reversed storage > order? You mean a scalar field contained in an aggregate type with reverse SSO? Then nothing, nothing is changed for scalars on an individual basis, only their presence inside an aggregate type with reverse SSO changes something. > I don't think this type construction is safe when the array type has > qualified element type. The following invariant is meant to hold: for an > array type whose element type (possibly after going down through several > levels of array types) is qualified, the TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT is a > corresponding array type whose element type is unqualified. So in that > case you need to build two sequences of array types, not one: the main > variants with unqualified element type, and the versions with qualified > element type. See c_build_qualified_type. I see, will adjust, thanks for the tip. -- Eric Botcazou
