On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- On May 5, 2020, at 2:48 PM, Linus Torvalds > [email protected] wrote: > [...] > > > > Your initial reaction that "you can't compile away the read and the > > test of NULL" was correct, I think. > > I suspect this pattern of "if (func != NULL) func(...)" could be semantically > changed to just invoking an empty function which effectively does nothing. > This would remove the need to do a pointer check in the first place. But maybe > I'm missing something subtle about why it has not been done in this context.
Good idea, this eliminates the check: https://godbolt.org/z/Xugo9w but you still have an indirect tail call (I think a direct tail call is the desired solution?) -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
