Re: [patch] limit and document unnamed fields.

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, DJ Delorie wrote:

> I got distracted, but I'm thinking about this again.  I can easily
> update the documentation to say "don't do that" but updating gcc to
> detect such ambiguous cases is more difficult (it's recursive).

I shouldn't have thought it would be more than a few lines of code (a
couple of recursive functions) to make these recursive checks.

> Personally, I'd like to update the documentation to say "undefined,
> may be a fatal error in the future." and leave gcc as-is (aside from
> the patch already submitted).
> 
> As for whether the gcc patch should go in grokfield, rather than
> finish_struct, I can go either way but trapping it at the source seems
> more straightforward than waiting until later and having to hunt it
> down again.

OK, send the revised patch that keeps the test in grokfield but makes the
documentation say the case of duplicate names is undefined and I'll review
it.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk