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

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
Cc: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 12 Nov 2005 19:36:02 +0100
Subject: Re: Null pointer check elimination
References: <1131747852.3205.105.camel@localhost.localdomain><200511121216.01403.dnovillo@redhat.com><437625F9.7020906@bothner.com><200511121239.23599.dnovillo@redhat.com>

Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com> writes:

| On Saturday 12 November 2005 12:27, Per Bothner wrote:
| 
| > I think you're missing the point.  The proposal is for a "type variant"
| > -  not that different from say "constant".
| >
| Ah, yes, sorry about that.  Yes, that would be useful as well.  However, 
| that is an orthogonal issue to having non-NULL function attributes.  We 
| can use both.

I'm not convinced.  I believe Per's suggestion is far superior, and
more general and does cover pretty well the issue at hand.  Plus,
a pointer-type-without-null is another spelling for reference type.

-- Gaby

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Diego Novillo

References:
- Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Anthony Green
- Re: Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Diego Novillo

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