This is the mail archive of the java-patches@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: [PATCH v2] Re: avoid useless if-before-free tests

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
Cc: Jim Meyering <jim at meyering dot net>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 07:28:37 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Re: avoid useless if-before-free tests
References: <87zkp9zmq0.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1103051908320.3878@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <877hc9r8w6.fsf_-_@rho.meyering.net> <yddsjuxadm7.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:

>> I found no ChangeLog for libgo and no other libgo-related entries.
>> I suspect that means I should omit this change because it belongs upstream.
>
> Indeed, cf. libgo/README*.  I've Cc'ed Ian who maintains this part of
> GCC.

Yes, libgo is upstream but in any case I'd prefer that you not make the
change to libgo/runtime/go-select.c.  I'm aware that free (NULL) is a
no-op but I wrote the code that way because it is extremely unlikely
that allocated_buffer != NULL.  I am simply inlining the common case.
Thanks.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH v2] Re: avoid useless if-before-free tests
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

References:
- Re: avoid useless if-before-free tests
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- [PATCH v2] Re: avoid useless if-before-free tests
  - From: Jim Meyering
- Re: [PATCH v2] Re: avoid useless if-before-free tests
  - From: Rainer Orth

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