On 9/1/2021 12:57 PM, Koning, Paul wrote:
On Sep 1, 2021, at 1:35 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:
Generally OK. There's some C++ front-end bits that Jason ought to take a quick
looksie at. Second, how does this interact with targets that allow objects at
address 0? We have a few targets like that and that makes me wonder if we
should be suppressing some, if not all, of these warnings for targets that turn
on -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks?
But in C, the pointer constant 0 represents the null (invalid) pointer, not the
actual address zero necessarily.
If a target supports objects at address zero, how does it represent the pointer
value 0 (which we usually refer to as NULL)? Is the issue simply ignored? It
seems to me it is in pdp11, which I would guess is one of the targets for which
objects at address 0 make sense.
The issue is ignored to the best of my knowledge.
Jeff
