OK, thanks.
Jason
Hi,
On 29/04/2016 15:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/28/2016 08:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
else if (ANON_AGGR_TYPE_P (type))
{
- tree fields;
-
- for (fields = TYPE_FIELDS (type); fields; fields = DECL_CHAIN
(fields))
+ for (tree fields = TYPE_FIELDS (type); fields;
+
On 04/28/2016 08:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
else if (ANON_AGGR_TYPE_P (type))
{
- tree fields;
-
- for (fields = TYPE_FIELDS (type); fields; fields = DECL_CHAIN (fields))
+ for (tree fields = TYPE_FIELDS (type); fields;
+ fields = DECL_CHAIN (fields))
if
Hi Jason,
On 28/04/2016 23:45, Jason Merrill wrote:
I would expect this to cause a false negative on a union of two
anonymous structs, both of which have initialized members.
I think better would be to have a local any_default_members rather
than passing the same pointer through all levels.
I would expect this to cause a false negative on a union of two
anonymous structs, both of which have initialized members.
I think better would be to have a local any_default_members rather than
passing the same pointer through all levels.
Also, you can look at 'type' rather than DECL_CONTEXT
Hi,
only when Jakub bumped some bugs in preparation for the release I noted
that this one remained assigned to me for way too much time...
Roughly speaking, the problem is caused by the fact that when we have a
GNU anonymous struct inside a union the fields are flattened out and
appear to be
Hi,
this is about the anonymous struct extension, but I think submitter is
right that we should accept the testcase (indeed both clang and edg
already do): in the below I propose to simply add a test of
ANON_AGGR_TYPE_P (DECL_CONTEXT (field)). Note that, given the definition
of ANON_AGGR_TYPE
