Re: [PATCH] handle qualified anonymous structures

[Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 09:35:43AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 8:26 AM Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> 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.

Yes, certainly since the vast majority will have a null mod.
 
> 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.

Yes, I agree.
I fact I almost did this but hen I said "why bother? it's always a NODE
anyway". But sure, it's cheap and better be safe than sorry.

> Anyway, looks good, and obviously passes my trivial test-case.

Thank you.
-- Luc