plonk.
On 26 May 2023 10:31:51 CEST, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 2023 18:58:04 +0200
>Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2023 18:54:06 +0100
>> "Roger Sayle" <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> > My understanding is that GCC's preferred null value for rtx is NULL_RTX
>> > (and for tree is NULL_TREE), and by being typed allows strict type
>> > checking,
>> > and use with function polymorphism and template instantiation.
>> > C++'s nullptr is preferred over NULL and 0 for pointer types that don't
>> > have a defined null of the correct type.
>> >
>> > This minor clean-up uses NULL_RTX consistently in i386-expand.cc.
>>
>> Oh. Well, i can't resist cleanups :)
>
>> (and handle nullptr too, and the same game for tree)
>
>so like the attached. And
>sed -e 's/RTX/TREE/g' -e 's/rtx/tree/g' \
> < ~/coccinelle/gcc-rtx-null.0.cocci \
> > ~/coccinelle/gcc-tree-null.0.cocci
>
>I do not know if we want to shorten explicit NULL comparisons.
> foo == NULL => !foo and foo != NULL => foo
>Left them alone in the form they were written.
>
>See the attached result of the rtx hunks, someone would have to build
I've bootstrapped and regtested the hunks for rtx as cited up-thread without
regressions (as expected).
I know everybody is busy, but I'd like to know if I should swap these out
completely, or postpone this until start of stage3 or next stage 1 or
something.
I can easily keep these local to my personal pre-configure stage for my own
amusement.
thanks,
>it and hack git-commit-mklog.py --changelog 'Use NULL_RTX.'
>to print("{}.".format(random.choice(['Ditto', 'Same', 'Likewise']))) ;)
>
>>
>> Just a thought..
>
>cheers,
