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: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling


On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as FILE
>>> and
>>> const tm. Since these have special handling in quite a few places, it
>>> seems
>>> necessary to make their support a bit more generic first. If I didn't
>>> mess
>>> up, this patch should not change anything.
>>
>>
>> It looks like a good thing to do before extending the set of types
>> handled this way.
>>
>> The only thing I dislike is the name 'predeclared', isn't it actually
>> forward declared or simply declared (as opposed to defined)?
>> So - declared_ptr_types maybe?
>>
>> Sorry for bikeshedding... - the patch itself looks good to me.
>
>
> I had "predefined_types" at some point, which turned into
> "predeclared_types", I am fine with a different name.
>
> This kind of declaration does not seem quite equivalent to a declaration in
> user code, but the difference is minimal. IIRC the comments do describe this
> as some kind of temporary declaration until we see a real one.
>
> I am ok with declared_ptr_types, but it may not convey the idea that this is
> not a list of all the pointer types in the program, just a few standard
> ones.
>
> standard_ptr_types? standard_structptr_types?

builtin_structptr_types maybe?

Richard.

>
> --
> Marc Glisse


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