On 02/17, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:33:20PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > With this change dissect can know the scope of SYM_STRUCT/UNION/ENUM,
> > see the next patch.
> >
> > Note that MOD_TOPLEVEL can be set even if struct/union/enum type is
> > private and bind_symbol() is not called.
>
> I don't like that very much. For example: why this is needed for
> struct/union/enum and not other types?
Do you mean builtin types like int_ctype? OK, I agree, this is slightly
inconsistent.
> Should it be possible to use the function toplevel() or add and
> helper for it in scope.c?
Well, toplevel() won't work if SYM_STRUCT/etc is anonymous, in this
case bind_symbol() is not called and thus sym->scope = NULL.
Consider
struct { int m; } x;
void func(void)
{
struct { int m; } x;
}
we want to report the 2nd struct definition as "local"
1:8 def s :x
1:14 def m :x.m int
1:19 def v x struct :x
3:6 def f func void ( ... )
5:16 func def . s :x
5:22 func def . m :x.m int
5:27 func def . v x struct :x
so that this spam can be filtered out, but base->scope is NULL in both
cases.
> > IIUC nobody else looks at SYM_STRUCT->ctype.modifiers, "make check"
> > doesn't show any difference.
>
> Yes, it's true and it shouldn't make any difference but still I
> would prefer to not mix symbols and types more than they already are.
OK, will you agree with one-liner below? This should make toplevel() work.
Oleg.
--- a/parse.c
+++ b/parse.c
@@ -772,6 +772,7 @@ static struct token *struct_union_enum_specifier(enum type type,
}
sym = alloc_symbol(token->pos, type);
+ sym->scope = block_scope;
token = parse(token->next, sym);
ctx->ctype.base_type = sym;
token = expect(token, '}', "at end of specifier");
