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] support static nested constructors in bitfields


Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > are these fine or do you prefer an explicit '!= NULL_TREE' added ?
> 
> Either approach is acceptable.  I personally prefer the explicit !=
> NULL_TREE, but certainly many others disagree.  There is no need to add
> it where it is not present.

 Understood.
 
> > + /* True if NODE, a FIELD_DECL, is to be processed as a bitfield for
> > +    constructor output purposes.  */
> > + #define CONSTRUCTOR_BITFIELD_P(NODE) \
> > +   ((DECL_BIT_FIELD (FIELD_DECL_CHECK (NODE)) && DECL_MODE (NODE) != BLKmode))
> 
> You have double parentheses around the whole expression; drop the outer
> ones.

 OK.

> > ! 	       && (local.field == 0 || !CONSTRUCTOR_BITFIELD_P (local.field)))
> >   	output_constructor_regular_field (&local);
>         
> >         /* For a true bitfield or part of an outer one.  */
> 
> S/0/NULL_TREE/

 Sure. This was extracted and ~ adjusted from what we had before your
 first review.
 
> This is OK.

 Thanks much for your feedback,

 Olivier


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