On Friday 02 November 2007 16:22:44 Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> The last thing is a bit problematic if you ask me because the following
> compiles with gcc and prints 5.
>
> struct foo {
> [...]
I find it odd that gcc accepts that, since there are effectively two members
of the struct with the same name.
> Back to your patch, is there a special reason behind returning -1
> instead of 1 in check_field if something is found?
Because all the bits are set instead of just bit zero...erm...not really :P
> Also a cosmetic remark, is_global could be written as below, no?
> [...]
ok, although it isn't particularly clear.
> A quick test showed that there are some false positives. I didn't
> investigate further. [...]
I'll have a look at it. Sorry for not checking!
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
