This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Apr 1 08:12, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On 2016-04-01 07:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Mar 31 12:18, Peter Foley wrote: > >>G++ 6.0 asserts that the "this" pointer is non-null for member functions. > >>Refactor methods that check if this is non-null to be static where > >>necessary, and remove the check where it is unnecessary. > > > >No, sorry, but now. Converting all affected functions to static > >functions just because this might be null is much too intrusive for my > >taste. *If* that's really a problem going forward, I'd rather see the > >pointer test moved into the caller. But don't waste your time on a > >patch yet. > > > >Let's please take a step back and look at what happens. So, here's the > >question: What error message does G++ 6 generate in case of an `if > >(this)' test in a member function, and why on earth should it care and > >do that? > > See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html, section named "Optimizations > remove null pointer checks for this". Oh well. I kind of start to miss the K&R times... Just kidding. I think. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |