From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from resqmta-a1p-077435.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-a1p-077435.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fd01:2bb4::3]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22FC7381776D for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:50:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 22FC7381776D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=comcast.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=comcast.net Received: from resomta-a1p-077060.sys.comcast.net ([96.103.145.238]) by resqmta-a1p-077435.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id FFYepgjcb2txlFFxLpKWzp; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:50:27 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1673362227; bh=rbKJ7lTPjOvQbRuAmphdYbvj5NDxkmvN0/v3QppASqo=; h=Received:Received:From:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject: Message-Id:Date:To:Xfinity-Spam-Result; b=NVTVa3k6oTH123cD15VaA5AFCWt7hHTRHLt1V86towVpSXnC6kHDzV7jI+CW3jfmp 3cOzMFW4rEM7Ra9gKf6FQBt4526SEU9xFbN9pXgwiq5mEPD5sgMYSslU+A4rFf62h4 W3xpYn3knYJW7vgpnmVyrKMdnf2dpBAMl1qjYtBis2gODax1nEBIvW/mrW1vBctbLt VBQVb6ENSpx051h1b3NvEhy1Ej+vFxJr7ItdLnxQwuiqcgGspGTcVwJnCbTgStvkgm pz5NP3sFXKu4OIKDfBCTaext2H+JHuDF0xah8WOJpVMwm0oOTDsv+vegPpio5DvIJ4 nPiRHn1qRcZLQ== Received: from smtpclient.apple ([73.60.223.101]) by resomta-a1p-077060.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id FFxJpqtJ9XUPyFFxKpZvh5; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:50:26 +0000 X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrledvgddthecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecunecujfgurhephfgtgfgguffkfffvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgruhhlucfmohhnihhnghcuoehprghulhhkohhnihhnghestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudefuefgffegffevffffteevvdejiefggfdtleekudeuledtveekvdeggeekkeevnecukfhppeejfedriedtrddvvdefrddutddunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghlohepshhmthhptghlihgvnhhtrdgrphhplhgvpdhinhgvthepjeefrdeitddrvddvfedruddtuddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehprghulhhkohhnihhnghestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopehgtggtsehgtggtrdhgnhhurdhorhhg X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit From: Paul Koning Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\)) Subject: struct vs. class in GCC source Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:50:24 -0500 To: GCC Development X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Building on Mac with Clang I get warnings like this: ../../../gcc/gcc/cgraph.h:2629:28: warning: struct 'cgraph_edge' was = previously declared as a class; this is valid, but may result in linker = errors under the Microsoft C++ ABI [-Wmismatched-tags] It seems to be talking about a MS bug (since C++ says struct and class = mean the same thing other than the default access). Still, I wonder if = it would be worth changing the code to use just one of "struct" or = "class" for any given type. (And then the convention would presumably = be that a POD type is called "struct" and other types are "class".) paul