[GCC-XML] last commit

[Brad King]

Roman Yakovenko wrote:
> Brad, I found something strange in XML, generated by GCC-XML with the
> latest patch. Also I am not sure whether this is GCCXML problem or my
> lack of C++ knowledge.
> 
> This is the smallest example I found:
> 
> namespace is_noncopyable{ namespace detail{
>     struct BBB{ const int values[10]; };
>     void test_BBB(BBB by_value);
>     struct const_container{ const BBB items[10]; };
>     void test_const_container(const_container by_value);
> } }
> 
> struct AAA{ const int values[10]; };
> 
> As you can see AAA and BBB struct has exactly same definition, but for
> some reason GCCXML generates that AAA has:
> 
> * constructor
> * copy constructor
> * operator=
> * destructor
> * variable
> 
> but BBB has only variable and public destructor.
> 
> If I comment declarations, that use BBB, than GCCXML generates all 5
> declarations.

This is very strange indeed.  I reduced the example to just

  namespace N {
    struct A {};
  #if 1
    struct B0 { const A a; };
  #endif
    struct B  { const A a; };
  }

If you switch the "1" to a "0" then all the decls in "A" show up.  I
added some debugging output to the dump code.  GCC doesn't even have an
internal representation for the missing decls.  Note the only difference
is whether a struct whose _name_ has at least two characters contains a
_const_ member of type A.  Even stranger, if it is put outside a namespace:

  struct A {};
  struct B  { const A a; };

then the length of the name does not matter.  Just having struct B is
enough to block the decls.  By commenting it out they all show up.

This must be some strange quirk in the GCC parser implementation.
Unfortunately we cannot report this as a bug to GCC folks unless we can
produce a C++ example that won't compile.

BTW, how did this change break your code?  All it did was start printing
some declarations it didn't print before.  How did you previously decide
whether a class has default/copy constructors?

-Brad