This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH 3/3] change class-key of PODs to struct and others to class (PR 61339)


On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 8:34 PM Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/9/19 9:17 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> writes:
> >> diff --git a/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h b/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
> >> index cfc41e1ed86..625d5b17413 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
> >> +++ b/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
> >> @@ -6428,7 +6428,7 @@ extern tree get_scope_of_declarator            (const cp_declarator *);
> >>   extern void grok_special_member_properties (tree);
> >>   extern bool grok_ctor_properties           (const_tree, const_tree);
> >>   extern bool grok_op_properties                     (tree, bool);
> >> -extern tree xref_tag                                (enum tag_types, tree, tag_scope, bool, bool * = NULL);
> >> +extern tree xref_tag                                (enum tag_types, tree, tag_scope, bool);
> >>   extern tree xref_tag_from_type                     (tree, tree, tag_scope);
> >>   extern void xref_basetypes                 (tree, tree);
> >>   extern tree start_enum                             (tree, tree, tree, tree, bool, bool *);
> >> diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.c b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> >> index 005f99a6e15..9accc3d141b 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> >> @@ -14119,7 +14119,7 @@ lookup_and_check_tag (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >>
> >>   static tree
> >>   xref_tag_1 (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >> -            tag_scope scope, bool template_header_p, bool *new_p)
> >> +            tag_scope scope, bool template_header_p)
> >>   {
> >>     enum tree_code code;
> >>     tree context = NULL_TREE;
> >> @@ -14151,9 +14151,6 @@ xref_tag_1 (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >>     if (t == error_mark_node)
> >>       return error_mark_node;
> >>
> >> -  /* Let the caller know this is a new type.  */
> >> -  *new_p = t == NULL_TREE;
> >> -
> >>     if (scope != ts_current && t && current_class_type
> >>         && template_class_depth (current_class_type)
> >>         && template_header_p)
> >> @@ -14215,7 +14212,6 @@ xref_tag_1 (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >>            scope = ts_current;
> >>          }
> >>        t = pushtag (name, t, scope);
> >> -      *new_p = true;
> >>      }
> >>       }
> >>     else
> >> @@ -14267,13 +14263,11 @@ xref_tag_1 (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >>
> >>   tree
> >>   xref_tag (enum tag_types tag_code, tree name,
> >> -          tag_scope scope, bool template_header_p, bool *new_p /* = NULL */)
> >> +          tag_scope scope, bool template_header_p)
> >>   {
> >>     bool dummy;
> >> -  if (!new_p)
> >> -    new_p = &dummy;
> >>     bool subtime = timevar_cond_start (TV_NAME_LOOKUP);
> >> -  tree ret = xref_tag_1 (tag_code, name, scope, template_header_p, new_p);
> >> +  tree ret = xref_tag_1 (tag_code, name, scope, template_header_p);
> >>     timevar_cond_stop (TV_NAME_LOOKUP, subtime);
> >>     return ret;
> >>   }
> >> diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >> index 52af8c0c6d6..d16bf253058 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >> @@ -28193,8 +28193,6 @@ cp_parser_template_declaration_after_parameters (cp_parser* parser,
> >>                                         member_p,
> >>                                              /*explicit_specialization_p=*/false,
> >>                                         &friend_p);
> >> -      // maybe_warn_struct_vs_class (token->location, TREE_TYPE (decl));
> >> -
> >>         pop_deferring_access_checks ();
> >>
> >>         /* If this is a member template declaration, let the front
> >
> > Looks like this might have been part of 1/3.
>
> Yes, this and a few other hunks didn't belong in this patch.
> I removed them, retested the patch, and committed r273311.
>
> >
> > OK otherwise.  Thanks again for doing this.
> >
> > (I guess a lot of these tags could be removed, but that was just as true
> > before the patch, so it's still a strict improvement.)
>
> Most could be removed and my own preference would have been to
> remove them.  The warning has a mechanism for figuring out which
> ones can one can go and which ones are needed and I considered
> making use of it.  In the end I decided to be conservative and
> keep them in case someone preferred it that way.  Making
> the change now that the cleanup is done will be slightly more
> involved.  I suppose we could add yet another warning to find
> them: -Wredundant-tag.

Just to pick one - why is struct loop not a POD?  Because of its
widest_int members?  But then we allocate it with
ggc_cleared_alloc<class loop> () which AFAICS doesn't
invoke a constructor (and I hope it doesn't trigger the finalization
path).

Richard.

>
> Martin


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