On 03/02/2017 06:35 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
While at it, I fixed wrong formatting in the nearby code. Also use NULL_TREE
instead of 0 where appropriate. I really dislike those zeros-as-trees; one
day I'll just go and turn them into NULL_TREEs.
I sympathize, but it makes it harder to see which parts of the patch are
actual changes. Generally it's best to separate functional and
formatting changes.
@@ -8996,7 +8999,7 @@ store_parm_decls_oldstyle (tree fndecl, const struct
c_arg_info *arg_info)
declared for the arg. ISO C says we take the unqualified
type for parameters declared with qualified type. */
if (TREE_TYPE (parm) != error_mark_node
- && TREE_TYPE (type) != error_mark_node
+ && TREE_TYPE (TREE_VALUE (type)) != error_mark_node
&& ((TYPE_ATOMIC (DECL_ARG_TYPE (parm))
!= TYPE_ATOMIC (TREE_VALUE (type)))
|| !comptypes (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (DECL_ARG_TYPE (parm)),
Isn't this most likely intended to be TREE_VALUE (type) != error_mark_node?
@@ -9017,7 +9020,7 @@ store_parm_decls_oldstyle (tree fndecl, const struct
c_arg_info *arg_info)
if (targetm.calls.promote_prototypes (TREE_TYPE
(current_function_decl))
&& INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (parm))
&& TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (parm))
- < TYPE_PRECISION (integer_type_node))
+ < TYPE_PRECISION (integer_type_node))
Should add the necessary parens while fixing formatting.
Bernd
