This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Add checks for tree.value, tree.minval, and tree.maxval and others
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: dnovillo at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 04 08:55:11 EST
- Subject: Re: Add checks for tree.value, tree.minval, and tree.maxval and others
How about the doc inconsistency? Is that wrong too? When did it
change? The code I quoted comes from a patch of yours in March 2000.
There's at least another similar hunk in that file.
I'm dealing first with the comments in tree.h themselves. They are badly
messed up, and I've been trying to correct them. I'm going to keep doing
that with the flags.
Yes, the .texi file also needs a cleanup at some point, but I want to
get the code and internal documentation in good shape first, then
address that issue in one batch.
TYPE_DOMAIN clearly is meant to refer to the index range of an array and
that never made sense for the SIZETYPE usage, so I made a new macro for that.