[PATCH] PR 78534 Change character length from int to size_t

Andre Vehreschild vehre@gmx.de
Tue Dec 20 15:40:00 GMT 2016



On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:00:19 +0100
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 04:55:29PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Andre Vehreschild <vehre@gmx.de> wrote:  
> > > Hi all,
> > >  
> > >> I think you should use build_zero_cst(size_type_node) instead of
> > >> size_zero_node as size_zero_node is of type sizetype which is not the
> > >> same as size_type_node. Otherwise looks good.  
> > >
> > > In the software design classes I took this was called a design error: Not
> > > choosing sufficiently different names for different artifacts. It was
> > > considered a beginner's error.  
> > 
> > Yeah, sizetype vs. size_type_node is confusing, to say the least..  
> 
> The first one is GCC internal type for representing sizes, the latter is
> the C size_t (usually they have the same precision, they always have the
> same signedness (unsigned)).
> In the past sizetype actually has been a signed type with very special
> behavior.

I am still wondering if it does not make sense to have something like
gfc_size_t_zero_node to prevent us from repeating build_zero_cst
(size_type_node) all the time. I had to use it 16 times, i.e., 16 times the
code for building a zero size type node is generated instead of a reference to
a "constant". And I don't want to know how often size_zero_node is used in the
wrong location.

- Andre
-- 
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de 



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list