On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:00:01 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > +enum field_loc_kind
> > +  {
> > +    FIELD_LOC_KIND_BITPOS,	/* bitpos */
> 
> Is it worth forcing the value of FIELD_LOC_KIND_BITPOS to zero?
> 
>      FIELD_LOC_KIND_BITPOS = 0,
> 
> (this is where my lack of knowledge of C shows up)

No, according to ISO C99 enums with no assignments get values 0, 1, 2...


>     int
>     field_is_static (struct field *f)
>     {
>       /* "static" fields are the fields whose location is not relative
>          to the address of the enclosing struct.  It would be nice to
>          have a dedicated flag that would be set for static fields when
>          the type is being created.  But in practice, checking the field
>          loc_kind should give us an accurate answer (at least as long as
>          we assume that DWARF block locations are not going to be used
>          for static fields).  FIXME?  */
>       return (FIELD_LOC_KIND (*f) == FIELD_LOC_KIND_PHYSNAME
>               || FIELD_LOC_KIND (*f) == FIELD_LOC_KIND_PHYSADDR);
>     }

Included.  FIELD_LOC_KIND_DWARF_BLOCK could be even asserted-out as the
current patchset uses FIELD_LOC_KIND_DWARF_BLOCK only for TYPE_CODE_RANGE
fields (low/high/stride) upon whose field_is_static() is never called.


> Can we replace the "FIELD_STATIC_KIND = 0" line by "SET_FIELD_BITPOS
> (*fp, 0);" and then remove the "else" part below?

Done.


Included you as a co-author of this patch.  OK to apply?
Regression-tested only on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.


Thanks,
Jan