Kazu Hirata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I keep finding places in GCC sources that check whether a member of > TYPE_ARG_TYPES is 0. For example, > > for (link = TYPE_ARG_TYPES (function_or_method_type); > link && TREE_VALUE (link); > link = TREE_CHAIN (link)) > gen_type_die (TREE_VALUE (link), context_die); > > Notice that TREE_VALUE (link) is part of the loop condition. > > Now, do we ever allow a NULL in TYPE_ARG_TYPES? If so, what does that > mean? My guess is that soneone was trying to be cautious about > encountering a NULL in TYPE_ARG_TYPES. (If that's the case, we should > be using gcc_assert instead.)
Just guessing here, but what happens with an old-style function definition in C? void f(); Ian
