Re: [RFA/dwarf-2] Avoid unnecessary subrange_type (3/3)

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker at gnat dot com>]

> > At some point, I thought that the check I am adding should go into
> > is_subrange_type(). This would also make sense, except that it would
> > make us recompute in is_subrange_type() a couple of values for both the
> > type and subtype which are already computed in subrange_type_die().
> > But maybe I'm wrong to be so cheap, and that is_subrange_type() is the
> > right place for that extra check?
> 
> Yes, please.

Thanks for the quick review.

Here is a new couple of patches.

The first one is just a preparation for the next one, to easy patch
reading. It doesn't change the output generated. It's not mechanical but
almost (I used my old lesson on how to negate a boolean expression).

2004-03-17  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@gnat.com>

        * dwarf2out.c (is_subrange_type): Minor code rework. No behavior
        change.

The second patch adds the check against base types.

2004-03-17  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@gnat.com>

        * dwarf2out.c (is_subrange_type): Do not emit a subrange_type DIE
        for base types.

Tested on x86-linux by bootstrapping, and using the GCC & GDB testsuites.
OK to apply?

Thanks,
-- 
Joel

Attachment: dwarf2out-1.diff
Description: Text document

Attachment: dwarf2out-2.diff
Description: Text document