Re: [OB] pointer ref, m2-typeprint.c

[Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> 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.

I think CHECK_TYPEDEF ought to require a non-NULL pointer, as it does
now.  An explicit test should protect calls when the type might be
NULL.