On 3/14/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#define LANG_TYPE_CODE (t) (TREE_CODE (t) == LANG_TYPE ?
LANG_TYPE_SUBCODE (t) : INVALID_SUBCODE)
and then INVALID_SUBCODE will fall through to the default case as well.
But that doesn't put the subcodes and the codes into the same
"namespace". We want to be able to write:
switch (TREE_CODE (t))
{
case FUNCTION_TYPE:
/* do something with function types. */
break;
case TYPEOF_TYPE_SUBCODED:
/* do something with TYPEOF_TYPE. */
break;
}
even though FUNCTION_TYPE is (and will always be) a top-level tree
code, whereas TYPEOF_TYPE should be subcoded and stashed away in a
LANG_TYPE.
Of course, one could use TREE_CODE to see through the difference
between these two, e.g.,
#define TREE_CODE(NODE)
((enum tree_code) (NODE)->base.code == LANG_TYPE?
(enum tree_code)((TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC (NODE)->base.subcode +
LAST_AND_UNUSED_TREE_CODE))
: (enum tree_code) (NODE)->base.code)
Then, the opposite for TREE_SET_CODE:
#define TREE_SET_CODE(NODE, VALUE)
((VALUE) >= LAST_AND_USED_TREE_CODE)?
((NODE)->base.code = LANG_TYPE, get_type_lang_specific
(NODE)->base.subcode = (VALUE) - LAST_AND_USED_TREE_CODE)
: ((NODE)->base.code = (VALUE))
Yuck.
Cheers,
Doug
