This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] pr57457
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Steve Ellcey <sellcey at imgtec dot com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:50:08 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457
- References: <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A429D70 at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com>
On 05/31/2013 07:54 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Everyone,
This patch will fix a bug reported in PR57457. One of the array notation function was not checking for NULL_TREE before accessing its fields. This patch should fix that issue. A test case is also added.
Is this OK for trunk?
Here are the ChangeLog Entries:
gcc/c/ChangeLog
2013-05-31 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.iyer@intel.com>
* c-array-notation.c (is_cilkplus_reduce_builtin): Added a check for
NULL_TREE parameter input.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2013-05-31 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.iyer@intel.com>
PR c/57457
* c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/pr57457.c: New testcase.
So what you need to do is explain how you got into this function with a
NULL fndecl and why that's OK.
ie, it's easy to sprinkle tests for NULL pointers in the sources to
change behaviour, but it's more important to look at why we're getting a
NULL pointer at any particular point and decide if it's valid or not.
You've probably already done the analysis, you just need to make sure to
include it in the patch submission. That way the reviewer can easily
see the change is correct and the analysis is preserved for future
reference.
Jeff