On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as FILE >>> and >>> const tm. Since these have special handling in quite a few places, it >>> seems >>> necessary to make their support a bit more generic first. If I didn't >>> mess >>> up, this patch should not change anything. >> >> >> It looks like a good thing to do before extending the set of types >> handled this way. >> >> The only thing I dislike is the name 'predeclared', isn't it actually >> forward declared or simply declared (as opposed to defined)? >> So - declared_ptr_types maybe? >> >> Sorry for bikeshedding... - the patch itself looks good to me. > > > I had "predefined_types" at some point, which turned into > "predeclared_types", I am fine with a different name. > > This kind of declaration does not seem quite equivalent to a declaration in > user code, but the difference is minimal. IIRC the comments do describe this > as some kind of temporary declaration until we see a real one. > > I am ok with declared_ptr_types, but it may not convey the idea that this is > not a list of all the pointer types in the program, just a few standard > ones. > > standard_ptr_types? standard_structptr_types?
builtin_structptr_types maybe? Richard. > > -- > Marc Glisse
