This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC-3.2.2 pre-release [and PR 9493]

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:28:48 +0100
Subject: Re: GCC-3.2.2 pre-release [and PR 9493]
References: <xajwukp63k9.fsf@perceval.inria.fr> <200301292106.18260.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <20030129140500.A11022@synopsys.com>

> It would appear that a null-pointer check can't make things worse, but
> it does raise a question as to whether this merely masks a bug that is
> somewhere else: is the compiler legitimately expecting a non-null pointer
> here?

I should have said that the line at stake comes after:

	      for (; insn && GET_CODE (insn) != CODE_LABEL && !INSN_P (insn);
		   insn = NEXT_INSN (insn))
		if (GET_CODE (insn) == NOTE
		    && NOTE_LINE_NUMBER (insn) == NOTE_INSN_LOOP_BEG)
		  break;

So the answer might be no indeed.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

References:
- GCC-3.2.2 pre-release
  - From: Gabriel Dos_Reis
- Re: GCC-3.2.2 pre-release [and PR 9493]
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: GCC-3.2.2 pre-release [and PR 9493]
  - From: Joe Buck

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