"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > "Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | And what is the meaning of code that does this:
| > | | int foo(int& a)
| > | {
| > | int* b = &a;
| > | | if(b ==0)
| > | {
| > | a();
| > | }
| > | else
| > | {
| > | b();
| > | }
| > According to the standard, the compiler can assume that the test is
| > always false, therefore rewrite the if-else as an unconditional call to
| > b(). GCC already does some null-pointer check deleting.
|
| Wow. I'm sure there is sound reasoning for this ... but I can't
| understand what that might be given a client module could intentionally
| (if ill-adviseadly) simply invoke the function:
then it gets what it deserves. Check out GCC manual for null-pointer
check.
-- Gaby
