Re: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

2017-06-22 Thread Marc Glisse
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and

Re: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

2017-06-22 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as

Re: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

2017-06-22 Thread Marc Glisse
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as FILE and const tm. Since these have special handling in quite a few places, it seems necessary to

Re: Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

2017-06-22 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as FILE and > const tm. Since these have special handling in quite a few places, it seems > necessary to make their support a bit more generic

Refactor fileptr_type_node handling

2017-06-22 Thread Marc Glisse
Hello, I was asked to handle (const) fenv_t and fexcept_t the same way as FILE and const tm. Since these have special handling in quite a few places, it seems necessary to make their support a bit more generic first. If I didn't mess up, this patch should not change anything. Bootstrap +