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@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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;
>
