On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:58:52PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > Given what was said on irc about DECL_NAME not necessarily being
> > > significant for DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls, would it be better to drop
> > > this part of the check?
> >
> > My preference was have it as narrow as possible for the time being,
> > because we are shortly before release.
> > We can replace it with an assertion or whatever later.
> > Perhaps even the predicate should check for non-NULL and non-zero
> > TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (field)).
>
> Btw, do we ever have more than one of those? The predicate doesn't
I think there can be at most one in each TYPE_FIELDS chain, but fields
of that can have it in their TYPE_FIELDS of their TREE_TYPEs too of course.
> check if the field is the "first" one (does it reliably appear
> before non-FIELD_DECLs and thus is it always == TYPE_FIELDS (DECL_CONTEXT
> (field))?)
I don't think anything guarantees that, in C++ I think usually the methods
appear first and there can be all kinds of other things in the chain (e.g.
using declarations etc.).
Jakub
