On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 07:35 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: > This is the correct fix, however, if you are going to lie to the > middle end about TYPE_SIZE so that the TYPE_SIZE and DECL_SIZE do not > match. > > If we always require that DECL_SIZE be identical to TYPE_SIZE, why > have a DECL_SIZE in the first place?
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?
