Hi,
>> Or you mean something else?
>
>I was thinking that the recursive part could be a simple loop to set
>access, but your way is fine too.
Ok, great. Note, before committing I mean to also simplify it a bit, the
TREE_STATIC check of the recursive part has no reason to exist, doesn't exist
On 09/04/2013 10:42 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Indeed. I think the recursive part already does that, because only the
first time is called complain == true (thus does exactly what the
current code does), then when the recursion proper starts, complain ==
false.
Ah yes, I see.
Or you mean someth
Hi,
On 09/04/2013 03:11 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
It looks to me like this will result in duplicate diagnostics for
invalid members in a nested anonymous union. Maybe make the recursive
part only handle access setting?
Indeed. I think the recursive part already does that, because only the
firs
It looks to me like this will result in duplicate diagnostics for
invalid members in a nested anonymous union. Maybe make the recursive
part only handle access setting?
Jason
... assuming the general idea makes sense, this version may be better
because, at the cost of 3 lines of code duplication, it cuts the
unnecessary function calls, eg exactly zero if the struct doesn't have
anonymous aggregates at all. The patch is also easier to read ;)
Booted and tested x86_6
Hi,
of the various access control issues we have got, this one seems rather
manageable.
It seems to me that in case of nested anonymous aggregates what is
needed to get the access control right is just a bit of recursion, to
completely propagate the access from the outer to the inner aggrega
