On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/16/2016 05:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > > > > > (I've heard some noise in C++-land about making memcpy(0,0,0) valid, but > > > that may have just been noise) > > > > We may have read the same discussion. It would make some things > > a little easier in C++ (and remove what most people view as yet > > another unnecessary gotcha in the language). > And that may be a reasonable thing to do. > > While GCC does take advantage of the non-null attribute when trying to prove > certain pointers must be non-null, it only does so when the magic flag is > turned on. There was a sense that it was too aggressive and that time may be > necessary for folks to come to terms with what GCC was doing, particularly in > the the memcpy (*, *, 0) case -- but I've never gotten the sense that happened > and we've never turned that flag on by default.
We only have -f[no-]delete-null-pointer-checks and that's on by default. So we _do_ take advantage of those. Richard.
