This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Silence class vs. struct warnings (opt_pass, ipa_opt_pass_d)
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Oleg Endo <oleg dot endo at t-online dot de>
- Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:30:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: Silence class vs. struct warnings (opt_pass, ipa_opt_pass_d)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1386233288 dot 14008 dot 9 dot camel at yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> <3B985852-FCA6-44C3-9FEC-D18E3CEFAB68 at gmail dot com> <1386238371 dot 14008 dot 30 dot camel at yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> <CAFiYyc2ewWrBMR1OysL9zJrLpQbWLp+v15QeQxuhXQtmeEQXTg at mail dot gmail dot com> <1386243714 dot 14008 dot 38 dot camel at yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> <CAFiYyc2aHSXWDcBtEjRBb+H7TztnHnvYzNzGAVT3dBhkDGMUCw at mail dot gmail dot com> <1386254099 dot 14008 dot 43 dot camel at yam-132-YW-E178-FTW>
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Oleg Endo <oleg.endo@t-online.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 14:56 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > but they are used somewhere else. I could replace the uses of those
>> > typedefs in a follow up patch, but for now I wanted to keep the changes
>> > minimal.
>>
>> I didn't mean those cerating typedefs for the pointer type.
>>
>> >> and rename structs accordingly).
>> >
>> > Sorry, I don't get it. Do you have an example in mind?
>>
>> grep for 'typedef struct.*{' in headers. The typedef name is usually
>> the desired one and is used without 'struct'. So it's an orthogonal
>> issue.
>
> Ah, do you mean converting this stuff ...
>
> typedef struct
> {
> cgraph_node_set set;
> unsigned index;
> } cgraph_node_set_iterator;
>
> ... to ...
>
> struct cgraph_node_set_iterator
> {
> ....
>
> right?
> Sure, no problem. But I'd rather do it step by step in separate
> patches. Is it OK to apply the following two as a start?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00458.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00460.html
Yes, those are ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Cheers,
> Oleg
>