SEGV in do_simple_structure_copy

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 08:26 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     Personally, I would have not had a DECL_SIZE, i would have made
>     TYPE_SIZE express the type size properly (IE not always a multiple).
> 
>     What is the incredibly good reason we have them both, other than to save
>     memory in the number of bitfield types we create?
> 
> Because we need to have a way to express the semantic concept of having
> an object of the type that has a slightly different representation than
> the type.  We could do this by making a new type for that object (Ada
> does this in some cases) and having conversions all over the place, but
> it's a mess.

You keep saying "If we had done this by creating new types, it would be 
a mess", but what we have *now* is a mess.

I seriously doubt the "mess" created by having new types for objects of
new sizes would be greater than what we have now.