OK, thanks.
Jason
Hi,
On 08/06/2014 05:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/05/2014 10:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ && (VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (type1))
+ || comptypes (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (type0)),
+ TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (type1)),
+ C
On 08/05/2014 10:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ && (VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (type1))
+ || comptypes (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (type0)),
+TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (type1)),
+COMPARE_
Hi,
On 08/05/2014 02:32 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/05/2014 08:10 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. a clarification. As I tried to briefly explain yesterday, this kind
of change means that:
extern void z();
void il() { if (z != (void*)0) z(); }
doesn't trigger anymore the pedwarn at beginning of
On 08/05/2014 08:10 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. a clarification. As I tried to briefly explain yesterday, this kind
of change means that:
extern void z();
void il() { if (z != (void*)0) z(); }
doesn't trigger anymore the pedwarn at beginning of
composite_pointer_type about the comparison itself
.. a clarification. As I tried to briefly explain yesterday, this kind
of change means that:
extern void z();
void il() { if (z != (void*)0) z(); }
doesn't trigger anymore the pedwarn at beginning of
composite_pointer_type about the comparison itself, for the simple
reason that we don't call
Hi,
On 08/05/2014 03:58 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/04/2014 07:01 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
In fact I wondered about that a few minutes after sending my message...
And this is what I figured out: normally we have hard errors from
composite_pointer_type (eg, try scalar types, class types), eve
On 08/04/2014 07:01 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
In fact I wondered about that a few minutes after sending my message...
And this is what I figured out: normally we have hard errors from
composite_pointer_type (eg, try scalar types, class types), even for
null values. The only exception I have been a
Hi,
On 08/04/2014 10:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/04/2014 12:24 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ || (TYPE_PTR_P (type1) && VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (type1))
Why check for VOID_TYPE_P? I'd think we would want to warn about
comparing to other null pointer values as well.
In fact I wond
On 08/04/2014 12:24 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ || (TYPE_PTR_P (type1) && VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (type1))
Why check for VOID_TYPE_P? I'd think we would want to warn about
comparing to other null pointer values as well.
Jason
10 matches
Mail list logo
