This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Is this expected gcc behaviour?

From: Yves Rutschle <y dot rutschle at indigovision dot com>
To: Peter Barada <peter at the-baradas dot com>
Cc: jtm-list-crossgcc at smoothsmoothie dot com, crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:58:41 +0100
Subject: Re: Is this expected gcc behaviour?
References: <20040803031941.GA13375@smoothsmoothie.com> <20040803060731.3BD76990F2@baradas.org>

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:07:31AM -0400, Peter Barada wrote:
> I don't think there is any case where an *address* of a pointer(not
> its value) can be NULL?

The reset vector on, e.g., an ARM processor, could be
thought of as a function pointer at address 0. That's a bit
of a stretch though I think :-)  and besides, in this case,
the value of &ptr is known at compile time, so optimising it
out is a reasonnable step.

Y.

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

References:
- Is this expected gcc behaviour?
  - From: Jay Monkman
- Re: Is this expected gcc behaviour?
  - From: Peter Barada

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]