[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Not a GCC bug (was Re: Big GCC bug!!! [Was: Re: Do not misuse Coverity please])
    Kyle Moffett wrote:
    > On Mar 30, 2005, at 18:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
    >> This testcase violates ISO C99
    >> If a null pointer constant is converted to a pointer type, the resulting
    >> pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed to compare unequal to a
    >> pointer to any object or function.
    > Except that the result of dereferencing a null pointer is implementation
    > defined according to the C99 standard. My implementation allows me to mmap
    > stuff at NULL, and therefore its compiler should be able to handle that
    > case. I would have no problem with either the standard or implementation
    > if it either properly handled the case or didn't allow it in the first
    > place.
    > On another note, I've discovered the flag
    > "-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks",
    > which should probably be included in the kernel makefiles to disable that
    > optimization for the kernel. (Ok, yes, I apologize, this isn't really a
    > GCC
    > bug, the behavior is documented, although it can be quite confusing. I
    > suspect it may bite some platform-specific code someday. It also muddies
    > the waters somewhat with respect to the original note (and the effects on
    > the generated code):
    >> int x = my_struct->the_x;
    >> if (!my_struct) return;

    Why should this be in the kernel makefiles? If my_struct is NULL,
    then the kernel will never reach the if statement.

    A warning might be nice though.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.022 / U:19.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site