cni-changes documented?

[root]

Adam Megacz writes:
 > 
 > Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
 > > What we must do, however, is switch from using pointers to using smart
 > > pointers: this is a matter of declaration rather than use.  
 > 
 > Forgive my ignorance, but why?  Or perhaps point me at the relevant
 > documentation.  I really like the fact that in CNI "a pointer is a
 > pointer" :)

It's because of null pointer traps, mostly.  Not every chip has an MMU
that will trap on null pointer accesses, and smart pointers give you a
painless way to do this.

This wil make no difference *at all* to anyone who has an MMU that
does trap on null pointer accesses; the code will be just the same.
Just the declaration will be different.  Really, there's no reason to
worry.

Andrew.