[cfe-dev] Fix for PR4701

[Daniel Dunbar]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 6:30 PM, David Chisnall<csdavec at swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
> I'd like to keep it.  Long-term, I agree with Steve - having explicit
> typedefs for what should be builtin types is an ugly hack.  If we leave it
> in then users can slowly drop the includes of the headers that define these
> types and fall back to using the compiler-supplied definitions.  In a little
> while we can add a warning for files that define these types.

To clarify, so your position is that long term clients should drop
uses of the other fields, but direct assignment / reading of isa is
ok?

One downside of that approach (aside from being speculative) is that
it encourages users to write non-portable (to gcc) code. Since it is
also speculative it seems to me to unnecessarily complicate clients,
but I'm happy to defer to others opinions on this.

 - Daniel

> David
>
> On 15 Aug 2009, at 02:24, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> So, if we go with the approach accepting the redefinition, should we
>> kill off ObjCIsaExpr?
>>
>> - Daniel
>