Re: host_integerp vs [] decls

[DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>]

> Yep, we've forgotten that [] arrays have no MAX_VALUE in the array.
> 
> Should be something like
> 
>       int const_bounds_p = (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain) && TYPE_MAX_VALUE (domain)
> 			    && host_integerp (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain), 0)
>                             && host_integerp (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (domain), 0));

Is it time for this change yet?  If so, should I get rid of all the
`constructor_max_index == 0' tests too, and just assume it's never
zero?

Index: c-typeck.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/c-typeck.c,v
retrieving revision 1.137
diff -p -3 -r1.137 c-typeck.c
*** c-typeck.c	2001/09/16 00:48:52	1.137
--- c-typeck.c	2001/09/19 19:17:08
*************** push_init_level (implicit)
*** 5356,5365 ****
  	    = convert (bitsizetype, 
  		       TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (constructor_type)));
  
! 	  /* ??? For GCC 3.1, remove special case initialization of
! 	     zero-length array members from pop_init_level and set
! 	     constructor_max_index such that we get the normal
! 	     "excess elements" warning.  */
  	}
        else
  	constructor_index = bitsize_zero_node;
--- 5356,5364 ----
  	    = convert (bitsizetype, 
  		       TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (constructor_type)));
  
! 	  /* Detect non-empty initializations of zero-length arrays.  */
! 	  if (constructor_max_index == NULL_TREE)
! 	    constructor_max_index = build_int_2 (-1, -1);
  	}
        else
  	constructor_index = bitsize_zero_node;