On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:38:38AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.
I was thinking of the other constructed types: arrays & pointers.
> > 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.
OK, I see.
> > > 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.
This will still be inconsistent with the other types but I can live
with this. If you could just add a comment explaining why it is needed
and using an helper instead of directly using 'block_scope' (like
set_[current_]scope() or something).
-- Luc
