On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 08:00 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (etype) && TREE_TYPE (etype))
> {
> etype = TREE_TYPE (etype);
> exp = fold_convert (etype, exp);
> low = fold_convert (etype, low);
> value = fold_convert (etype, value);
> }
>
> I gather that we should restrict the transformation to INTEGER_TYPEs.
>
> We could, but the other possibility is to use an INTEGER_TYPE of the same
> precision and use it in the code above when the input ETYPE is an
> ENUMERAL_TYPE.
Presumably there's a reason why enumeral types don't have a
base type?
I've got no strong opinions on how to fix this, I just wanted
to throw out another possible approach.
jeff
