On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 8:34 PM Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/9/19 9:17 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> diff --git a/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h b/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
> >> index cfc41e1ed86..625d5b17413 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
> >> +++ b/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
> >> @@ -6428,7 +6428,7 @@ extern tree get_scope_of_declarator
> >> (const cp_declarator *);
> >> extern void grok_special_member_properties (tree);
> >> extern bool grok_ctor_properties (const_tree, const_tree);
> >> extern bool grok_op_properties (tree, bool);
> >> -extern tree xref_tag (enum tag_types,
> >> tree, tag_scope, bool, bool * = NULL);
> >> +extern tree xref_tag (enum tag_types,
> >> tree, tag_scope, bool);
> >> extern tree xref_tag_from_type (tree, tree,
> >> tag_scope);
> >> extern void xref_basetypes (tree, tree);
> >> extern tree start_enum (tree, tree, tree,
> >> tree, bool, bool *);
> >> diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.c b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> >> index 005f99a6e15..9accc3d141b 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> >> @@ -14119,7 +14119,7 @@ lookup_and_check_tag (enum tag_types tag_code,
> >> tree name,
> >>
> >> static tree
> >> xref_tag_1 (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >> - tag_scope scope, bool template_header_p, bool *new_p)
> >> + tag_scope scope, bool template_header_p)
> >> {
> >> enum tree_code code;
> >> tree context = NULL_TREE;
> >> @@ -14151,9 +14151,6 @@ xref_tag_1 (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >> if (t == error_mark_node)
> >> return error_mark_node;
> >>
> >> - /* Let the caller know this is a new type. */
> >> - *new_p = t == NULL_TREE;
> >> -
> >> if (scope != ts_current && t && current_class_type
> >> && template_class_depth (current_class_type)
> >> && template_header_p)
> >> @@ -14215,7 +14212,6 @@ xref_tag_1 (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >> scope = ts_current;
> >> }
> >> t = pushtag (name, t, scope);
> >> - *new_p = true;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> else
> >> @@ -14267,13 +14263,11 @@ xref_tag_1 (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >>
> >> tree
> >> xref_tag (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >> - tag_scope scope, bool template_header_p, bool *new_p /* = NULL
> >> */)
> >> + tag_scope scope, bool template_header_p)
> >> {
> >> bool dummy;
> >> - if (!new_p)
> >> - new_p = &dummy;
> >> bool subtime = timevar_cond_start (TV_NAME_LOOKUP);
> >> - tree ret = xref_tag_1 (tag_code, name, scope, template_header_p, new_p);
> >> + tree ret = xref_tag_1 (tag_code, name, scope, template_header_p);
> >> timevar_cond_stop (TV_NAME_LOOKUP, subtime);
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >> index 52af8c0c6d6..d16bf253058 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >> @@ -28193,8 +28193,6 @@ cp_parser_template_declaration_after_parameters
> >> (cp_parser* parser,
> >> member_p,
> >>
> >> /*explicit_specialization_p=*/false,
> >> &friend_p);
> >> - // maybe_warn_struct_vs_class (token->location, TREE_TYPE (decl));
> >> -
> >> pop_deferring_access_checks ();
> >>
> >> /* If this is a member template declaration, let the front
> >
> > Looks like this might have been part of 1/3.
>
> Yes, this and a few other hunks didn't belong in this patch.
> I removed them, retested the patch, and committed r273311.
>
> >
> > OK otherwise. Thanks again for doing this.
> >
> > (I guess a lot of these tags could be removed, but that was just as true
> > before the patch, so it's still a strict improvement.)
>
> Most could be removed and my own preference would have been to
> remove them. The warning has a mechanism for figuring out which
> ones can one can go and which ones are needed and I considered
> making use of it. In the end I decided to be conservative and
> keep them in case someone preferred it that way. Making
> the change now that the cleanup is done will be slightly more
> involved. I suppose we could add yet another warning to find
> them: -Wredundant-tag.
Just to pick one - why is struct loop not a POD? Because of its
widest_int members? But then we allocate it with
ggc_cleared_alloc<class loop> () which AFAICS doesn't
invoke a constructor (and I hope it doesn't trigger the finalization
path).
Richard.
>
> Martin
