This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Null pointer check elimination


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
>
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]