From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21980 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2007 15:33:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 21971 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2007 15:33:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:33:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D241B982BB; Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:33:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DADE982B8; Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:33:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I51QD-0002sm-U0; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:33:09 -0400 Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [OB] pointer ref, m2-typeprint.c Message-ID: <20070701153309.GA10872@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <5515.12.7.175.2.1183077423.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070629004328.GA18113@caradoc.them.org> <9780.12.7.175.2.1183078961.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070629113703.GB13561@caradoc.them.org> <000f01c7ba7b$f2e3af20$677ba8c0@sonic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000f01c7ba7b$f2e3af20$677ba8c0@sonic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 11:33:08AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > I agree. It would be pretty simple to make CHECK_TYPEDEF safe, > and I think I would rather do that than go hunt down every place that > calls it. What do you think? Should I add that to this patch? > > It would add a "not equal to null" test to every call to CHECK_TYPEDEF, > of which there are many, but on today's hardware the cost should be less > than negligable... Do you think the case of a NULL type is at all common? I bet everything that uses CHECK_TYPEDEF then looks inside the type, so if we want null type checks, they'd be more useful before the CHECK_TYPEDEF than inside it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery