This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Some questions about FIELD_DECL

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Gcc Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:26:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Some questions about FIELD_DECL
References: <1116715395.13015.65.camel@linux.site>

Daniel Berlin wrote:

While moving FIELD_DECL to it's own substruct, the following questions
have come up.  I figured one of you might know:

1. Do we need DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME on FIELD_DECL?  I can't think of a
place where we would actually try to *output* a FIELD_DECL directly, but
maybe i've missed something.  I ask because the C frontend tests
decl_assembler_name on field decl, but never sets it on them.

Related to this:

2. Do we allow setting the section of a FIELD_DECL, so that
DECL_SECTION_NAME on FIELD_DECL is necessary?

We should need neither DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME nor DECL_SECTION_NAME. If we do, that's a bug in whatever is using them -- but I don't know how hard it would be to fix. In GCC, things that look like fields, but are really variables, like C++ static data members or anonymous union members, should be represented as VAR_DECLs.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Some questions about FIELD_DECL
  - From: Daniel Berlin

References:
- Some questions about FIELD_DECL
  - From: Daniel Berlin

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]