On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:07 Christopher Bazley, wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 23:53, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:23 Christopher Bazley, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christ
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 23:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:23 Christopher Bazley, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc,
>>> wrote:
>>>
Does the lack of support fo
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:23 Christopher Bazley, wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc,
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Does the lack of support for Clang's nullability qualifiers in GCC
>>> indicate
>>> a greater likel
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc,
> 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
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc,
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
In August, I had an idea for a C language extension to improve null pointer
safety. The tl;dr is that whereas a pointer-to-const may have undefined
behaviour on write access, a pointer-to-_Optional may have undefined
behaviour on read or write access. I shared this proposal with my
colleagues, many
