misleading comment in tree.def

Article View: gnu.gcc.bug

Article #2719

#2719

From: Ron Guilmette
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 1989 21:31

13 lines
911 bytes

I believe that the following comment (from tree.def) in 1.35
is no longer accurate.

------------------------------------------------------------------
   Also, TREE_UNSIGNED (function_decl) is nonzero if the ({...})
    construct is used in the function.
------------------------------------------------------------------

// Ron Guilmette  -  MCC  -  Experimental Systems Kit Project
// 3500 West Balcones Center Drive,  Austin, TX  78759  -  (512)338-3740
// ARPA: rfg@mcc.com
// UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg

Technical Details

Message-ID: <8906032131.AA18505@pink.aca.mcc.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!MCC.COM!rfg

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!MCC.COM!rfg
From: rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.bug
Subject: misleading comment in tree.def
Message-ID: <8906032131.AA18505@pink.aca.mcc.com>
Date: 3 Jun 89 21:31:18 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 13