On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:23 Christopher Bazley, <cs99...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Does the lack of support for Clang's nullability qualifiers in GCC >>> indicate >>> a greater likelihood for my proposed feature to be accepted into GCC? >> >> >> No, I don't think so. I think it would be better to support the same >> qualifiers as Clang, not diverge in this way. >> > > Clang’s _Nullable qualifier is broken and pretty useless (even according > to the code owner), so good luck with that. > But marking pointer arguments as non-null is already supported in GCC (with an attribute on the function, not the argument). Supporting a nonnull attribute on individual arguments seems useful to me. Far more than marking pointers as maybe-null, which is already true for all pointers.
