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

Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-07-01T15:33:45Z

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