Re: [C++ Patch] PR 66644

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,

On 29/04/2016 15:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/28/2016 08:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >     else if (ANON_AGGR_TYPE_P (type))
> >       {
> > -      tree fields;
> > -
> > -      for (fields = TYPE_FIELDS (type); fields; fields = DECL_CHAIN 
> > (fields))
> > +      for (tree fields = TYPE_FIELDS (type); fields;
> > +       fields = DECL_CHAIN (fields))
> >       if (TREE_CODE (fields) == FIELD_DECL && !DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (field))
> > -      check_field_decl (fields, t, cant_have_const_ctor,
> > -                no_const_asn_ref, any_default_members);
> > +      any_default_members_field |= check_field_decl (fields, t,
> > +                             cant_have_const_ctor,
> > +                             no_const_asn_ref,
> > +                             any_default_members);
>
> The logic here seems convoluted.  I guess we don't need to handle 
> anonymous structs and unions differently here because we'll call 
> check_field_decls for the anonymous union itself, and complain then?  
> In that case, instead of passing down any_default_members at all, can 
> we just pass it up and complain in check_field_decls?
Indeed. Code reworked along these lines becomes even comprehensible ;) 
Something as simple as the below passes testing....

Thanks,
Paolo.

////////////////////////////

Attachment: patch_66644_3
Description: Text document