RE: [PATCH] pr57457

["Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:50 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457
> 
> 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.

Hi Jeff,
	I looked into it, and there is another function call called inform_declaration, and that does exactly what I did (i.e. check for NULL fundecl before accessing its fields). From what I can tell, fundecl will be NULL_TREE if a function declaration is a function pointer.

Thanks,

Balaji V. Iyer.

> 
> 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