--- Comment #10 from pgut001 at cs dot auckland dot ac dot nz 2008-06-11
03:47 ---
>13. Unlike for C9X, the consensus at the London meeting was that there should
>be no invention, without exception. Only those features that have a history
>and are in common use by a commercial implement
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-06-10 11:53 ---
Subject: Re: Use of the 'nonnull' attribute breaks
code
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, pgut001 at cs dot auckland dot ac dot nz wrote:
> fully correct code suddenly breaks. In fact gcc seems to be doing the
> opposite
>
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-10 09:56 ---
This works as designed (and documented). Whether the design is the best
possible
one is another question.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pgut001 at cs dot auckland dot ac dot nz 2008-06-10
09:27 ---
>The developer of the API says that it must be non-NULL so when the developer
>of the API then tests for NULLness he is either being stupid or really just
>thinking that the user will not use it correctly
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-10 09:19 ---
>gcc doesn't just use it for that, it applies two often mutually exclusive
>interpretations to the same
> attribute.
They are no mutually exclusive at all. Think of it is this way. The developer
of the API says t
--- Comment #5 from pgut001 at cs dot auckland dot ac dot nz 2008-06-10
09:15 ---
>Think printf with %s where it is supplied with a NULL argument or puts
>with a NULL argument.
Sure, I understand how that part of it works, but gcc doesn't just use it for
that, it applies two often mut
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-10 09:07 ---
The GCC attribute is an extension. What it is about is saying if it is NULL
then the program/function will crash and is not expecting a NULL argument. So
if you mark a function argument as non NULL, then the optimi
--- Comment #3 from pgut001 at cs dot auckland dot ac dot nz 2008-06-10
09:02 ---
It's more than just a documentation bug, two different portions of gcc are
interpreting this attribute in completely different ways, and the interaction
between the two breaks otherwise perfectly valid cod
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-10 08:25 ---
No this is not a non documentation bug as non-null attribute says that the
argument has to be non null to work correctly. So if you pass a NULL argument
to the function, it will crash. So optimizing out the check fo
