OK, thanks!
-- Gaby
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> Thanks. But a point of the suggestion was that we won't need the
> same comment/explanation duplicated over at least 3 places. Just
> one. All those three places deal exactly with one instance: null
> pointer constant. That deserves a function in and of itself, whic
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>> There are various conversion related warnings that trigger on
>>> potentially dangerous uses of NULL (or __null). NULL is defined as a
>>> macro in a
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> There are various conversion related warnings that trigger on
>> potentially dangerous uses of NULL (or __null). NULL is defined as a
>> macro in a system header, so calling warning or warning_at on a virtual
>
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> There are various conversion related warnings that trigger on
> potentially dangerous uses of NULL (or __null). NULL is defined as a
> macro in a system header, so calling warning or warning_at on a virtual
> location of NULL yields no diag
There are various conversion related warnings that trigger on
potentially dangerous uses of NULL (or __null). NULL is defined as a
macro in a system header, so calling warning or warning_at on a virtual
location of NULL yields no diagnostic. So the test accompanying this
patch (as well as others)
