Re: [patch] Fix the failures created by fix for PR 27144

[Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>]

Hello,

> > > Is there a strong reason to have unsigned_type_for and signed_type_for,
> > > when lang_hooks.types.unsigned_type and lang_hooks.types.signed_type
> > > would appear to be sufficient?
> > 
> > They do not handle pointers correctly.  Also, I am too lazy to type
> > ugly long names like these :-)
> 
> How are they ugly, they tell what is going on instead of how
> unsigned_type_for and signed_type_for where you have to
> look into a different file to figure out what is going on.

huh?  Both "lang_hooks" and "types" part carry no useful information,
and to understand what the "signed_type" part mean, I still have to
look to a different file.  But feel free to propose the patch to remove
the (un)signed_type_for functions if you prefer, I do not really care.

Zdenek