PING^3 Re: [i386 PATCH] A minor code clean-up: Use NULL_RTX instead of nullptr

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 21:14:02 +0200 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > plonk. ping^3 patch at https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20230526103151.3a7f6...@nbbrfq.loc/ I would regenerate it for rtx and/or tree, though, whatever you deem desirable? thanks > > On 26 May 2023 10:31:51 CEST,

Re: [i386 PATCH] A minor code clean-up: Use NULL_RTX instead of nullptr

plonk. On 26 May 2023 10:31:51 CEST, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >On Thu, 25 May 2023 18:58:04 +0200 >Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 May 2023 18:54:06 +0100 >> "Roger Sayle" wrote: >> >> > My understanding is that GCC's preferred null value for rtx is NULL_RTX >> > (and

Re: [i386 PATCH] A minor code clean-up: Use NULL_RTX instead of nullptr

On Thu, 25 May 2023 18:58:04 +0200 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Wed, 24 May 2023 18:54:06 +0100 > "Roger Sayle" 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

Re: [i386 PATCH] A minor code clean-up: Use NULL_RTX instead of nullptr

On Wed, 24 May 2023 18:54:06 +0100 "Roger Sayle" 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

[i386 PATCH] A minor code clean-up: Use NULL_RTX instead of nullptr

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