This is the mail archive of the 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: [Ada PATCH] Clean-up Ada front-end use of TREE_OVERFLOW

On Sun, 15 May 2005, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     Diagnosing these these types of problem in GCC's Ada front-end would be
>     easier if the following patch could be approved (ping?):
> That needs somebody who knows the pp stuff; it's OK with me if it looks
> correct to them.

Hopefully, Gabriel can comment?  I apologise in advance as I appreciate
he's currently being kept busy by gcc 3.3.5.

> > Ok for mainline?
> Probably, but I'd like to ask what the TREE_OVERFLOW checking will be
> testing.  If TREE_CODE_CLASS, then I think it's more consistent to do
> the same check in max_size, but if a list of explicit codes, then I
> agree with your patch.

Whilst I agree that using CONSTANT_CLASS_P would be consistent and
therefore obviously safe, the explicit use of an explicit INTEGER_CST
test is motivated by context.  IIUC the values being represented and
manipulated by ada/utils.c's max_size function denote the size in
bytes (or possibly bits) of data types and data structures.  These
presumably should never be floating point, complex or vector constant

Let me know if I'm overlooking something.

Thanks for your speedy review.


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