> This avoids setting the TREE_OVERFLOW bit on DECL_FIELD_OFFSET for > the shifted bounds field. > > If DECL_FIELD_OFFSET of array-field is always a constant we could > as well use > > DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (bounds_field) > = size_int (-int_byte_position (array_field)); > > also I notice that DECL_OFFSET_ALIGN is now bogus for bounds_field.
Yes, the offsets in the template record are fixed. > DECL_FIELD_OFFSET no longer has the desired zero bits. Shouldn't we > instead set DECL_FIELD_OFFSET to -DECL_OFFSET_ALIGN and adjust > DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET accordingly? > > Well, with the above questions and suggestions I'd rather leave it > to you deciding whether you like the below hack or want to rework > the function a bit. I guess that we have 3 solutions: - keep the negative offset hack and patch up, - make DECL_FIELD_OFFSET use ssizetype instead of sizetype, - remove the negative offset hack and devise a replacement mechanism. We previously discussed 2 internally and agreed that it would be kind of an earthquake (feel free to differ though :-) So it's probably about time to bite the bullet and tackle 3 seriously... -- Eric Botcazou
