This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: Patch: RFA: fix PR


>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:

>> This patch fixes the bug in the simplest way, by adding a check for
>> null_pointer_node when creating the anonymous constructor.  (We can't
>> do the check in the caller as that will cause problems when calling an
>> ordinary constructor with a `null' argument.)
>>> Test case included.  Ok?

Andrew> I would be careful here because INTEGER_CST are shared and I
Andrew> assume that null is an INTEGER_CST.  Maybe the better fix
Andrew> would be change null_pointer_node to represented a different
Andrew> way.

What is happening here is that we have a list of types.  The patch
just causes us to replace one type in the list with a different type.
I don't think it is possible to accidentally modify null_pointer_node
here.

FWIW, I suspect a change to the representation of null_pointer_node
would be fairly major.  I think a lot of code knows about how it is
represented.

Tom


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