From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A9BA3858411 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 16:55:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8A9BA3858411 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=embecosm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=embecosm.com Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id s25so10324780edw.0 for ; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 09:55:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=embecosm.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oVwq6AodKRtEX4/NheXAKdK7FnFmExHTWxeyUXWU4cw=; b=eMhfmSlQRVTJUCJCrbUx+HX+V6K4m0IDHNi51jt+7xzGvdMcXOb3kScb6bsBvGNP4q srQpyl/5vwZCgkgTlb89OFbjxt1zKiqy4Bqx8v5I7lMd+Suw5yA+/CqLeD56M0c+3lu8 zSVglKtq4jGGBbrO6w5nxJZWKrQiukA2ir0hQ0Q9D+XF4XW/nU9uXcfFs+CwwbWHDkD7 mGpxn18eXwyGRVzIdeEC//bEdwe4O5mwuMaTiUaWHaMO+qGN3gQyeiimgyfv3FhoTo4d A1e61ZyB4i1o74Ws+e1+s9A/FUmTbX8onl59XsSMy6ZPg7dP39Hs5RobqZDtzdU96eVk bX1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oVwq6AodKRtEX4/NheXAKdK7FnFmExHTWxeyUXWU4cw=; b=ADoC/sTUuSc/YTrik92VIPa4yy3tMSdv4fSVyu0anvRUx2FzzefwL+qO3xe1FwFDDS 7KbcMKeE6/sAPQRxN09etQNmvfmPl1NY8FxLtu7kJrbpK76+poabk/HIEc4NBe4OKCuZ W24EeFel4V/sJjwFs3n2pOKAfNjeFQKzBiGkOqmq1Hwn4OmKknjY1BIdnVR5lT89CMdU l8cXHMZAMjZS6p/BnUDKiu4r2C/WB1m+4CUfrAcitFV292IcNrGclgjHcouM/rm5TFNV pIpM4+s+ij1O0u8wI+n2CUhbVbZwtAdDLRL/1iqdTHttdNPZJlLGlc5UvF4sFapg42DZ Emaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qu1sBImJPnh+88G3kWsJdG36Qsg3fsWKc1HWuYTZIjKPuuhNv BNdGR7aFmsopbgr/zGHJpbWREGBfVHjvL7OVvYKuxqm8gXloKw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyf0oWYlCCk3fNcJaaBVhjhUctaO4os8Y/w73jc1YZmKrSPHrfkafg7P9WzB0encshZlfOPo4exh9Y8HkZp1uA= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cfcb:: with SMTP id r11mr14399570edy.14.1630947356383; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 09:55:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210901001542.160965-1-mark@klomp.org> In-Reply-To: From: Philip Herron Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 17:55:45 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cleanup some StructExpr related classes To: Mark Wielaard Cc: gcc-rust@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d330a205cb56852f" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-rust@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: gcc-rust mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 16:55:58 -0000 --000000000000d330a205cb56852f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Mark, Well done on the new patches they are currently being merged. I imagine the typechecking could be a bit more complex since correct me if I am wrong but I feel like this might end up affecting the whole PathInExpression resolution which is fairly complicated. There is a nullptr bug there if it fails to resolve the root segment. I imagine there might need to be a check in the resolve_segments for if the tyseg which will be the type of the previous segment, if that is an ADTType which is an enum then look for the name of the field within the struct but i am not 100% sure if it does affect the PathInExpression stuff. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help or review? I don't mind checking out your branches to play with too. Thanks --Phil --000000000000d330a205cb56852f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mark,

Well done on the ne= w patches they are currently being merged. I imagine the typechecking could= be a bit more complex since correct me if I am wrong but I feel like this = might end up affecting the whole PathInExpression resolution which is fairl= y complicated. There is a nullptr bug there if it fails to resolve the root= segment.

I imagine there might need to be a check in the= resolve_segments for if the tyseg which will be the type of the previous s= egment, if that is an ADTType which is an enum then look for the name of th= e field within the struct but i am not 100% sure if it does affect the Path= InExpression stuff.

Let me know if there is anything I ca= n do to help or review? I don't mind checking out your branches to play= with too.

Thanks

--Phil
--000000000000d330a205cb56852f--