From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-49753-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19342 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2007 20:50:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 19333 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2007 20:50:22 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:50:19 +0000
Received: (qmail 19808 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2007 20:50:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 3 Jul 2007 20:50:18 -0000
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@sonic.net>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [OB] pointer ref, m2-typeprint.c
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> 	<20070701153309.GA10872@caradoc.them.org>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:50:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20070701153309.GA10872@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:33:09 -0400")
Message-ID: <m3ir9143fy.fsf@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2


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.