| Message ID | 20191215110425.76533-4-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | tidy-up of typeof expansion | expand |
On 15/12/2019 11:04, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > No functional changes here, just moving the code for the > conversion of SYM_TYPEOFs in its own function, in preparation > for some further changes. > > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> > --- > symbol.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/symbol.c b/symbol.c > index 3655cbb78913..46fe740b4cc1 100644 > --- a/symbol.c > +++ b/symbol.c > @@ -453,6 +453,25 @@ static struct symbol *examine_pointer_type(struct symbol *sym) > return sym; > } > > +static struct symbol *examine_typeof(struct symbol *sym) > +{ > + struct symbol *base = evaluate_expression(sym->initializer); > + unsigned long mod = 0; > + > + if (!base) > + base = &bad_ctype; > + if (is_bitfield_type(base)) > + warning(base->pos, "typeof applied to bitfield type"); > + if (base->type == SYM_NODE) { > + mod |= base->ctype.modifiers & MOD_TYPEOF; > + base = base->ctype.base_type; > + } > + sym->type = SYM_NODE; > + sym->ctype.modifiers = mod; > + sym->ctype.base_type = base; > + return examine_node_type(sym); > +} > + > /* > * Fill in type size and alignment information for > * regular SYM_TYPE things. > @@ -486,26 +505,8 @@ struct symbol *examine_symbol_type(struct symbol * sym) > case SYM_BASETYPE: > /* Size and alignment had better already be set up */ > return sym; > - case SYM_TYPEOF: { > - struct symbol *base = evaluate_expression(sym->initializer); > - if (base) { > - unsigned long mod = 0; > - > - if (is_bitfield_type(base)) > - warning(base->pos, "typeof applied to bitfield type"); > - if (base->type == SYM_NODE) { > - mod |= base->ctype.modifiers & MOD_TYPEOF; > - base = base->ctype.base_type; > - } > - sym->type = SYM_NODE; > - sym->ctype.modifiers = mod; > - sym->ctype.base_type = base; > - return examine_node_type(sym); > - } > - sym->type = SYM_NODE; > - sym->ctype.base_type = &bad_ctype; > - return sym; Hmm, it was not immediately clear that the '!base' path did not introduce an (effective) functional change. I suspect that it does not, but I wasn't sure if examine_node_type(sym) for the above 'bad_ctype' symbol would add alignment, bit_size or rank to the symbol (and even if it did, would it matter?). ATB, Ramsay Jones > - } > + case SYM_TYPEOF: > + return examine_typeof(sym); > case SYM_PREPROCESSOR: > sparse_error(sym->pos, "ctype on preprocessor command? (%s)", show_ident(sym->ident)); > return NULL; >
On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 07:20:34PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote: > On 15/12/2019 11:04, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > Hmm, it was not immediately clear that the '!base' path did not > introduce an (effective) functional change. I suspect that it > does not, but I wasn't sure if examine_node_type(sym) for the > above 'bad_ctype' symbol would add alignment, bit_size or rank > to the symbol (and even if it did, would it matter?). Mmmm, yes. It shouldn't matter but I prefer to avoid this. Thanks for noticing. -- Luc
On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 08:26:44PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 07:20:34PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > On 15/12/2019 11:04, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > > > Hmm, it was not immediately clear that the '!base' path did not > > introduce an (effective) functional change. I suspect that it > > does not, but I wasn't sure if examine_node_type(sym) for the > > above 'bad_ctype' symbol would add alignment, bit_size or rank > > to the symbol (and even if it did, would it matter?). > > Mmmm, yes. It shouldn't matter but I prefer to avoid this. OTOH, examine_symbol_type() can anyway be called on it later. So, I'll leave it so as I find it more readable. -- Luc
diff --git a/symbol.c b/symbol.c index 3655cbb78913..46fe740b4cc1 100644 --- a/symbol.c +++ b/symbol.c @@ -453,6 +453,25 @@ static struct symbol *examine_pointer_type(struct symbol *sym) return sym; } +static struct symbol *examine_typeof(struct symbol *sym) +{ + struct symbol *base = evaluate_expression(sym->initializer); + unsigned long mod = 0; + + if (!base) + base = &bad_ctype; + if (is_bitfield_type(base)) + warning(base->pos, "typeof applied to bitfield type"); + if (base->type == SYM_NODE) { + mod |= base->ctype.modifiers & MOD_TYPEOF; + base = base->ctype.base_type; + } + sym->type = SYM_NODE; + sym->ctype.modifiers = mod; + sym->ctype.base_type = base; + return examine_node_type(sym); +} + /* * Fill in type size and alignment information for * regular SYM_TYPE things. @@ -486,26 +505,8 @@ struct symbol *examine_symbol_type(struct symbol * sym) case SYM_BASETYPE: /* Size and alignment had better already be set up */ return sym; - case SYM_TYPEOF: { - struct symbol *base = evaluate_expression(sym->initializer); - if (base) { - unsigned long mod = 0; - - if (is_bitfield_type(base)) - warning(base->pos, "typeof applied to bitfield type"); - if (base->type == SYM_NODE) { - mod |= base->ctype.modifiers & MOD_TYPEOF; - base = base->ctype.base_type; - } - sym->type = SYM_NODE; - sym->ctype.modifiers = mod; - sym->ctype.base_type = base; - return examine_node_type(sym); - } - sym->type = SYM_NODE; - sym->ctype.base_type = &bad_ctype; - return sym; - } + case SYM_TYPEOF: + return examine_typeof(sym); case SYM_PREPROCESSOR: sparse_error(sym->pos, "ctype on preprocessor command? (%s)", show_ident(sym->ident)); return NULL;
No functional changes here, just moving the code for the conversion of SYM_TYPEOFs in its own function, in preparation for some further changes. Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> --- symbol.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)