View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000695 | LDMud 3.3 | LPC Compiler/Preprocessor | public | 2009-10-27 10:13 | 2011-02-22 23:00 |
| Reporter | zesstra | Assigned To | zesstra | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Target Version | 3.3.720 | Fixed in Version | 3.3.720 | ||
| Summary | 0000695: Missing base struct if base struct is empty. | ||||
| Description | In case of an empty base struct: struct a_s { }; struct b_s (a_s) { int m; }; the compiler fails to set the .base pointer in the struct type of b_s. While that does not have any immediate consequences, I think, even empty base structs should be recorded as base structs. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
add_struct_member() sets pdef->type->base, when called with from_struct!=NULL. And that is (of course) only be done when there are members from the base struct from_struct to add... Is there a reason not to set ->base in current_struct within opt_base_struct: (near line 6422 in prolang.y) instead of add_struct_member()? |
|
|
I applied a patch doing this in r2788 for trunk. If that works, 3.3 should IMHO receive it as well. |
|
|
Fixed in r2828 for 3.3. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-10-27 10:13 | zesstra | New Issue | |
| 2009-10-27 10:14 | zesstra | Description Updated | |
| 2009-10-27 10:40 | zesstra | Note Added: 0001563 | |
| 2009-11-01 17:29 | zesstra | Note Added: 0001580 | |
| 2009-11-01 17:30 | zesstra | Status | new => assigned |
| 2009-11-01 17:30 | zesstra | Assigned To | => zesstra |
| 2010-01-24 12:20 | zesstra | Note Added: 0001697 | |
| 2010-01-24 12:20 | zesstra | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2010-01-24 12:20 | zesstra | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2011-02-22 23:00 | zesstra | Fixed in Version | => 3.3.720 |
