+2002-04-11 Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@redhat.com>
+
+ * decl.c (duplicate_decls): Don't try to unify an implicit typedef
+ with an explicit one.
+ (lookup_tag): Extract the tag of an explicit typedef.
+
2002-04-10 Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
PR c++/5507
}
}
+ /* Do not merge an implicit typedef with an explicit one. In:
+
+ class A;
+ ...
+ typedef class A A __attribute__ ((foo));
+
+ the attribute should apply only to the typedef. */
+ if (TREE_CODE (olddecl) == TYPE_DECL
+ && (DECL_IMPLICIT_TYPEDEF_P (olddecl)
+ || DECL_IMPLICIT_TYPEDEF_P (newdecl)))
+ return 0;
+
/* If new decl is `static' and an `extern' was seen previously,
warn about it. */
warn_extern_redeclared_static (newdecl, olddecl);
else
old = BINDING_TYPE (old);
- /* If it has an original type, it is a typedef, and we
- should not return it. */
+ /* If the declaration has an original type, it must a
+ typedef. When it is an explicit typedef of the form:
+
+ typedef struct A A;
+
+ the original type will be the tag that we want.
+ We should not return any other kind of typedef.
+
+ Detect the valid case by checking that the original
+ type has the same name and context as the typedef. */
if (old && DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE (TYPE_NAME (old)))
- old = NULL_TREE;
+ {
+ old = DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE (TYPE_NAME (old));
+ if (TYPE_IDENTIFIER (old) != name
+ || context_for_name_lookup (TYPE_NAME (old)) != tail)
+ old = NULL_TREE;
+ }
if (old && TREE_CODE (old) != form
&& (form == ENUMERAL_TYPE || TREE_CODE (old) == ENUMERAL_TYPE))
{