This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Null pointer check elimination
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:26:29 +0100
- Subject: Re: Null pointer check elimination
- References: <200511130020.jAD0KdDW010198@earth.phy.uc.edu> <m3br0ps6p3.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
On 13 Nov 2005 02:00:08 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:
>
> | >
> | > Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:
> | >
> | > | > | of what the semantics of REFERENCE_TYPE are/should be, then yes.
> | > | >
> | > | > See, it is not a semantics I made up. Even people arguing for null
> | > | > reference recognize it is undefined behaviour.
> | > |
> | > | With C++ yes but not with Fortran where there are optional arguments.
> | >
> | > Then what is the difference between a pointer type and a reference type?
> |
> | To the middle-end nothing,
>
> That is why GCC got it wrong.
And this is why there seemed to be consensus to merge the two in the
middle-end and preserve debug-info somehow differently. Like with
a "frontend type-id" on the decl. That would allow lowering of f.i.
integral types to their modes at some point, too.
Richard.
(blue)
> [...]
>
> | GCC is not a C++ play ground.
>
> ?
>
> -- Gaby
>
>