Changes in src/SymTab/Autogen.cc [2e3a379:9554d9b]

File:

• src/SymTab/Autogen.cc (modified) (4 diffs)

src/SymTab/Autogen.cc

@@ -10 +10 @@
 // Created On       : Thu Mar 03 15:45:56 2016
 // Last Modified By : Rob Schluntz
-// Last Modified On : Tue May 03 16:56:21 2016
+// Last Modified On : Thu May 26 14:14:09 2016
 // Update Count     : 1
 //
@@ -163 +163 @@
         /// Creates a new type decl that's the same as src, but renamed and with only the ?=?, ?{} (default and copy), and ^?{} assertions (for complete types only)
         TypeDecl *cloneAndRename( TypeDecl *src, const std::string &name ) {
+                // TypeDecl *dst = new TypeDecl( name, src->get_storageClass(), 0, src->get_kind() );
+
+                // if ( src->get_kind() == TypeDecl::Any ) {
+                //      TypeInstType *opParamType = new TypeInstType( Type::Qualifiers(), name, dst );
+                //      FunctionType *opFunctionType = new FunctionType( Type::Qualifiers(), false );
+                //      opFunctionType->get_parameters().push_back(
+                //              new ObjectDecl( "", DeclarationNode::NoStorageClass, LinkageSpec::Cforall, 0, new PointerType( Type::Qualifiers(), opParamType->clone() ), 0 ) );
+                //      FunctionDecl *ctorAssert = new FunctionDecl( "?{}", DeclarationNode::NoStorageClass, LinkageSpec::Cforall, opFunctionType->clone(), 0, false, false );
+                //      FunctionDecl *dtorAssert = new FunctionDecl( "^?{}", DeclarationNode::NoStorageClass, LinkageSpec::Cforall, opFunctionType->clone(), 0, false, false );
+
+                //      opFunctionType->get_parameters().push_back(
+                //              new ObjectDecl( "", DeclarationNode::NoStorageClass, LinkageSpec::Cforall, 0, opParamType, 0 ) );
+                //      FunctionDecl *copyCtorAssert = new FunctionDecl( "?{}", DeclarationNode::NoStorageClass, LinkageSpec::Cforall, opFunctionType->clone(), 0, false, false );
+
+                //      opFunctionType->get_returnVals().push_back(
+                //              new ObjectDecl( "", DeclarationNode::NoStorageClass, LinkageSpec::Cforall, 0, opParamType->clone(), 0 ) );
+                //      FunctionDecl *assignAssert = new FunctionDecl( "?=?", DeclarationNode::NoStorageClass, LinkageSpec::Cforall, opFunctionType, 0, false, false );
+
+
+                //      dst->get_assertions().push_back( assignAssert );
+                //      dst->get_assertions().push_back( ctorAssert );
+                //      dst->get_assertions().push_back( dtorAssert );
+                //      dst->get_assertions().push_back( copyCtorAssert );
+                // }
+
                 TypeDecl *dst = new TypeDecl( src->get_name(), src->get_storageClass(), 0, src->get_kind() );
                 cloneAll(src->get_assertions(), dst->get_assertions());
@@ -217 +242 @@
                                 if ( type->get_qualifiers().isConst ) {
                                         // don't assign const members
+                                        continue;
+                                }
+
+                                if ( field->get_name() == "" ) {
+                                        // don't assign to anonymous members
+                                        // xxx - this is a temporary fix. Anonymous members tie into
+                                        // our inheritance model. I think the correct way to handle this is to
+                                        // cast the structure to the type of the member and let the resolver
+                                        // figure out whether it's valid and have a pass afterwards that fixes
+                                        // the assignment to use pointer arithmetic with the offset of the
+                                        // member, much like how generic type members are handled.
                                         continue;
                                 }
@@ -317 +353 @@
                         if ( isUnnamedBitfield( dynamic_cast< ObjectDecl * > ( member ) ) ) {
                                 // don't make a function whose parameter is an unnamed bitfield
+                                continue;
+                        } else if ( member->get_name() == "" ) {
+                                // don't assign to anonymous members
+                                // xxx - this is a temporary fix. Anonymous members tie into
+                                // our inheritance model. I think the correct way to handle this is to
+                                // cast the structure to the type of the member and let the resolver
+                                // figure out whether it's valid and have a pass afterwards that fixes
+                                // the assignment to use pointer arithmetic with the offset of the
+                                // member, much like how generic type members are handled.
                                 continue;
                         }