On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:21:54AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Well, if we're going to go that direction, I'd just say define
> VEC_BASE to (&(P)->base) for non-checking rather than mess with the
> NONNULL variant. Is there some reason why we don't do that?
Because the VEC_BASE macro is also used fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/11 01:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:28:52PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> This was caught by some prototype code to warn for potential
>> NULL pointer dereferences.
>
> Clearly we have a set of vec.h operations th
Hi!
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:28:52PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> This was caught by some prototype code to warn for potential NULL
> pointer dereferences.
Clearly we have a set of vec.h operations that require the vector to be
non-NULL.
Seems it is last, index (which already have such check in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This was caught by some prototype code to warn for potential NULL
pointer dereferences.
Let's look at vt_equate_reg_base_value from alias.c:
void
vt_equate_reg_base_value (const_rtx reg1, const_rtx reg2)
{
VEC_replace (rtx, reg_base_value, REGNO
