Re: [patchv2] compile: Fix crash on cv-qualified self-reference

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

> +  quals = 0;
> +  if (TYPE_CONST (type))
> +    quals |= GCC_QUALIFIER_CONST;
> +  if (TYPE_VOLATILE (type))
> +    quals |= GCC_QUALIFIER_VOLATILE;
> +  if (TYPE_RESTRICT (type))
> +    quals |= GCC_QUALIFIER_RESTRICT;
> +  result = C_CTX (context)->c_ops->build_qualified_type (C_CTX (context),
> +							 result, quals);
>    insert_type (context, type, result);

Can we use convert_qualified instead?  I find code we added here is
quite similar to convert_qualified.

>  
>    for (i = 0; i < TYPE_NFIELDS (type); ++i)
> @@ -329,10 +342,13 @@ static gcc_type
>  convert_type_basic (struct compile_c_instance *context, struct type *type)
>  {
>    /* If we are converting a qualified type, first convert the
> -     unqualified type and then apply the qualifiers.  */
> +     unqualified type and then apply the qualifiers, except for the
> +     types handling qualifiers on their own.  */
>    if ((TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAGS (type) & (TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_CONST
>  				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_VOLATILE
> -				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_RESTRICT)) != 0)
> +				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_RESTRICT)) != 0
> +      && (TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_STRUCT
> +	  && TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_UNION))
>      return convert_qualified (context, type);

It looks right to me, however, isn't cleaner to do in this way?

   /* Comments on why we do this first */
   if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_STRUCT
       || TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_UNION)
       return convert_struct_or_union (context, type);

  /* If we are converting a qualified type, first convert the
     unqualified type and then apply the qualifiers.  */
  if ((TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAGS (type) & (TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_CONST
				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_VOLATILE
				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_RESTRICT)) != 0)
    return convert_qualified (context, type);

  switch (TYPE_CODE (type))
   {
      /* Don't need to handle TYPE_CODE_STRUCT and TYPE_CODE_UNION
         here.  */
   }

Otherwise, the patch looks good to me.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)