On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Corinna Vinschen
wrote:
> As I mentioned in my first reply, I'd prefer if the callers check the
> pointer explicitly. Changing the methods to static methods seems ...
> wrong. Ugly, if you don't mind me saying so.
Fair enough, I'll
On Apr 1 09:34, Peter Foley wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz
> wrote:
> > See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html, section named "Optimizations
> > remove null pointer checks for this".
>
> If there's an better way to do this, I'm all ears.
On Apr 1 08:12, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2016-04-01 07:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Mar 31 12:18, Peter Foley wrote:
> >>G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member functions.
> >>Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to be static where
> >>necessary, and
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html, section named "Optimizations
> remove null pointer checks for this".
If there's an better way to do this, I'm all ears.
However, it seems to come down to either making
On 2016-04-01 07:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 31 12:18, Peter Foley wrote:
G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member functions.
Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to be static where
necessary, and remove the check where it is unnecessary.
No, sorry, but
On Mar 31 12:18, Peter Foley wrote:
> G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member functions.
> Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to be static where
> necessary, and remove the check where it is unnecessary.
No, sorry, but now. Converting all affected functions to
G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member functions.
Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to be static where
necessary, and remove the check where it is unnecessary.
winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog
external.cc (cygwin_internal): Call _pinfo::cmdline staticly
cygheap.h