[PATCH] BIT_FIELD_REF_UNSIGNED considered harmful

[Manfred Hollstein]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008, 13:47:36 +0100, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 03/05/08 07:18, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> >Comments?
> 
> Makes sense to me.
> 
> >+ 	      if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
> >+ 		  && (TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (t))
> >+ 		      != TREE_INT_CST_LOW (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1))))
> >+ 		{
> >+ 		  error ("integral result type precision does not match "
> >+ 			 "field size of BIT_FIELD_REF");
> >+ 		  return t;
> >+ 		}
> >+ 	      if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
> 
> 'else if' here?

In theory, yes, but, why? If the first 'if' part evaluates to true,
control flow jumps out of the function, hence the following 'if' is
totally correct (unless someone #define's return to something else...),
or do the GCC/FSF codings conventions require this to be 'else if'?

> Diego.

Cheers.

l8er
manfred