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: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>,Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 04:29:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Null pointer check elimination
References: <200511130020.jAD0KdDW010198@earth.phy.uc.edu> <m3br0ps6p3.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <84fc9c000511130126i5516b14en53000a095503932@mail.gmail.com>

Richard Guenther wrote:

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.


It seems a clear mistake to me to tie debug information so closely
to the actual gcc type information, and this is another example
of it causing unnecessary trouble.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Joe Buck

References:
- Re: Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: Null pointer check elimination
  - From: Richard Guenther

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