[patch] Fix the failures created by fix for PR 27144
Zdenek Dvorak
rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Tue May 2 21:32:00 GMT 2006
Hello,
> > > Is there a strong reason to have unsigned_type_for and signed_type_for,
> > > when lang_hooks.types.unsigned_type and lang_hooks.types.signed_type
> > > would appear to be sufficient?
> >
> > They do not handle pointers correctly. Also, I am too lazy to type
> > ugly long names like these :-)
>
> How are they ugly, they tell what is going on instead of how
> unsigned_type_for and signed_type_for where you have to
> look into a different file to figure out what is going on.
huh? Both "lang_hooks" and "types" part carry no useful information,
and to understand what the "signed_type" part mean, I still have to
look to a different file. But feel free to propose the patch to remove
the (un)signed_type_for functions if you prefer, I do not really care.
Zdenek
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list