Hi Joseph, > On Mar 26, 2025, at 12:07 PM, Joseph Myers <josmy...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Yeoul Na wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for all the discussions. >> >> I posted the design rationale for our current approach in >> https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-forward-referencing-a-struct-member-within-bounds-annotations/85510. >> >> This clarifies some of the questions that are asked in this thread. The >> document also proposes diagnostics to mitigate potential ambiguity, and >> propose new builtins that can be used as a suppression and >> disambiguation mechanism. > > That doesn't say anything about the handling of ambiguity between > structure members and typedef names. > > typedef char T; > > struct foo { > int T; > int U; > int *__counted_by((T)+U) buf; > }; > > Is T interpreted as a typedef name inside __counted_by? Or does even the > interpretation of which identifiers are typedef names and which are > expressions depend on membership of the structure? > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > josmy...@redhat.com >
Inside `__counted_by` will see the struct scope, so a typedef will also be shadowed by a member declaration. Thus, `T` would be interpreted as a member inside `__counted_by`. Thanks, Yeoul
