On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 8:26 AM Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So, the solution chosen here is to handle this during type examination,
> more precisely, inside examine_struct_union_type(), where things are
> a bit more complicated
Well, doesn't look all that complicated to me.
The only thing I would do is to just at the head of that function do:
unsigned long mod = sym->ctype.modifiers & MOD_QUALIFIER;
if (!mod)
return;
and that also means that you can avoid the "parent-vs-sym" thing,
because the symbol is never used after that, so you don't need to
create a new one.
The other thing that might be worth doing is to just make sure that
the "sub" whose modifier you change is always a SYM_NODE. We never
want to touch an actual type, only the node.
I don't think it _can_ be anything else (that's how the struct/union
symbol_list should be set up), but since this is a very unusual case
of going back and modifying a symbol after the fact, I think I'd be a
bit more comfortable with that kind of sanity check.
Hmm?
Anyway, looks good, and obviously passes my trivial test-case.
Linus
