[PATCH] BIT_FIELD_REF_UNSIGNED considered harmful

[Richard Kenner]

> > >+ 	      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? 

It's easier to read at-a-glance.  A reader can tell quickly that the 
intent is that only one of the options be taken.  It's easier to spot
the "else" than the "return" in the body.