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
