From: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: PING [PATCH] accept flexible arrays in struct in unions (c++/71912 - [6/7 regression])
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 01:46:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d68a95c2-2e8a-6f9e-4f50-354ea68dc3c9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <afbaed37-0437-0efd-e332-33e201385fa1@gmail.com>
Jason,
Are there any other changes you want me to make to the patch?
I leave this weekend for the WG14 meeting and would like to
get this change finalized and hopefully committed before then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg00410.html
Thanks
Martin
On 10/06/2016 02:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> I'm asking you to clarify the logic. It seems that your change to
>> fldtype affects these two tests:
>>
>>> if (eltype == fldtype || TYPE_UNNAMED_P (eltype))
>>
>>> if (TREE_CODE (fldtype) != ARRAY_TYPE)
>>
>> ...but this is extremely subtle. It would be a lot clearer to check fld
>> for FIELD_DECL or TYPE_DECL explicitly rather than relying on these
>> places that treat fldtype as a type to do the right thing because you've
>> obfuscated it. But I'm tired of going back and forth on this, so here's
>> a patch.
>>
>> And now that I notice it, there seems to be no reason to handle typedefs
>> deep in the code for handling fields, it's simpler to handle them up top.
>
> I'm sorry you're frustrated. I have no problem changing the code to
> the way you wrote it. I agree it's more streamlined though I would
> be hard pressed to consider the improvement to be worth the time and
> effort we both put into it. I'm also not sure I see how someone can
> be expected to write the code exactly the way you want based on little
> more than questions about why the code does what it does. I had no
> idea what your expectation was for the fldtype variable for instance.
>
> Attached is the integrated patch.
>
> Martin
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-12 1:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-22 19:14 Martin Sebor
2016-07-23 17:18 ` Martin Sebor
2016-07-26 18:53 ` Jason Merrill
2016-07-29 23:22 ` Martin Sebor
2016-07-31 16:28 ` Jason Merrill
2016-07-31 20:27 ` Martin Sebor
2016-08-01 14:22 ` Jason Merrill
2016-08-02 21:00 ` Martin Sebor
2016-08-02 22:26 ` Jason Merrill
2016-08-03 2:13 ` Martin Sebor
2016-08-03 18:05 ` Jason Merrill
2016-09-14 17:05 ` Martin Sebor
2016-09-16 18:40 ` Jason Merrill
2016-09-20 17:12 ` Martin Sebor
2016-09-21 20:55 ` Jason Merrill
2016-09-22 23:57 ` Martin Sebor
2016-09-23 18:05 ` Jason Merrill
2016-10-05 21:43 ` Martin Sebor
2016-10-06 2:26 ` Jason Merrill
2016-10-06 20:29 ` Martin Sebor
2016-10-12 1:46 ` Martin Sebor [this message]
2016-10-12 13:43 ` PING " Jason Merrill
2016-10-13 22:40 ` Martin Sebor
2016-08-03 19:10 ` Martin Sebor
2016-08-03 20:02 ` Jason Merrill
2016-08-03 20:23 ` Martin Sebor
2016-08-03 21:53 ` Jason Merrill
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d68a95c2-2e8a-6f9e-4f50-354ea68dc3c9@gmail.com \
--to=msebor@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).