This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: SEGV in do_simple_structure_copy
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:49:00 -0400
- Subject: Re: SEGV in do_simple_structure_copy
- References: <10510071226.AA21024@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 08:26 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Personally, I would have not had a DECL_SIZE, i would have made
> TYPE_SIZE express the type size properly (IE not always a multiple).
>
> What is the incredibly good reason we have them both, other than to save
> memory in the number of bitfield types we create?
>
> Because we need to have a way to express the semantic concept of having
> an object of the type that has a slightly different representation than
> the type. We could do this by making a new type for that object (Ada
> does this in some cases) and having conversions all over the place, but
> it's a mess.
You keep saying "If we had done this by creating new types, it would be
a mess", but what we have *now* is a mess.
I seriously doubt the "mess" created by having new types for objects of
new sizes would be greater than what we have now.