Hi,
On 25/01/2018 17:25, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
Hi all,
On 25/01/2018 16:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ || (DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (field) && !DECL_NAME (field)))
By the way, I see we are accumulating uses of DECL_C_BIT_FIELD &&
!DECL_NAME, s
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 25/01/2018 16:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> + || (DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (field) && !DECL_NAME (field)))
>
> By the way, I see we are accumulating uses of DECL_C_BIT_FIELD &&
> !DECL_NAME, shall we add a new macro? For Stage
Hi all,
On 25/01/2018 16:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ || (DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (field) && !DECL_NAME (field)))
By the way, I see we are accumulating uses of DECL_C_BIT_FIELD &&
!DECL_NAME, shall we add a new macro? For Stage 1? In case, how shall we
name it?
Paolo.
OK.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Unnamed bitfields are not data members, so we should ignore them when
> counting the members or picking up members to initialize from, and
> also should ignore them in find_decomp_class_base, they can appear
> in various bases e
Hi!
Unnamed bitfields are not data members, so we should ignore them when
counting the members or picking up members to initialize from, and
also should ignore them in find_decomp_class_base, they can appear
in various bases etc. and still there could be just one base containing
direct non-static
