Re: Some questions about FIELD_DECL

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:26 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> > > While moving FIELD_DECL to it's own substruct, the following questions
> > > have come up.  I figured one of you might know:
> > >
> > > 1. Do we need DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME on FIELD_DECL?  I can't think of a
> > > place where we would actually try to *output* a FIELD_DECL directly, but
> > > maybe i've missed something.  I ask because the C frontend tests
> > > decl_assembler_name on field decl, but never sets it on them.
> > >
> > > Related to this:
> > >
> > > 2. Do we allow setting the section of a FIELD_DECL, so that
> > > DECL_SECTION_NAME on FIELD_DECL is necessary?
> >
> > We should need neither DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME nor DECL_SECTION_NAME.  If we 
> > do, that's a bug in whatever is using them -- but I don't know how hard 
> > it would be to fix.
>
>
> Only one place was attempting to set them (the C++ FE, and the patch
> removed it), and one place was attempting to verify them (this was the
> gcc_assert you didn't like :P)

Great; thanks.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304