Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Messing typedefs?

[Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>]

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 08:51 +0200, Thomas Schmid wrote:
> > My interpretation of the code is following.  Types may have idents,
> > which keep information where and how the type was defined.  Base types
> > don't have idents.
> 
> But unfortunately they get one. 

I understand it better now.  Suppose we have:

typedef struct {int a;} foo;
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
        foo bar;
        bar.x = 1;
}

The structure is indeed unnamed.  If the error message is going to call
the _structure_ by name, it's correct to call it unnamed.

One possible fix would be to have an "inherited ident", which would be
set only by that code in external_declaration().  This would leave basic
types alone.

Then we need to come with a message that would be printed if only the
inherited ident is present.  gcc prints:

test.c:5: error: 'foo' has no member named 'x'

No "struct" is mentioned.  If we want to be more verbose, we could print
something like:

test.c:5:5: error: no member 'x' in struct type foo

Another solution would be to remove the ident setting code and try to
find the typedef name directly in evaluate_member_dereference().

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin