Re: DECL_FIELD_CONTEXT woes

[Gabriele SVELTO <gabriele dot svelto at st dot com>]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 10 January 2008 16:40, Gabriele SVELTO wrote:
>
>   Yes, you're completely correct about the artificial initialiser function; I
> thought the compiler might output it as a nested function, but I don't know
> without checking.  (But I've been working on gcc for only ~7 years so I might
> be badly wrong on this or indeed any other one..... ;-P it's a big old pile of
> code!)

I guess so, it redefined my concept of "large, complex project".

>   Really you should use CP_TYPE_CONST_P to test this; IIUC, things can be
> const without being readonly (and perhaps even vice-versa), depending on which
> kind of section (.data/.rdata) they're allocated to.

Thanks for the type, I was completely unaware of the existence of that macro.

>   I believe this is indeed gcc's bog-standard way of creating a qualified
> variant of an existing type.  Note that you should see in this case that
> TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == DECL_FIELD_CONTEXT (TYPE_FIELDS (type)), I think.

Good to know, TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT () is exactly what I was looking for, 
unfortunately it's description in tree.def isn't exactly crystal clear :P Thank 
you very much

 Gabriele