This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bogus trees from Ada front-end (more VRP vs Ada) stuff)
> Presumably there's a reason why enumeral types don't have a
> base type?
They are viewed as full-blown types by Ada, forming the class of discrete
types with integral types, so there are probably no semantics reasons why
ENUMERAL_TYPE nodes should have an INTEGER_TYPE node as their base type.
I'm testing a pure fold-const.c patch based on Richard's suggestion.