From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 28713388E81F; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:40:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 28713388E81F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1592325602;
 bh=JTKvkVpT7aCqgSllJT/ugdhTjCJvX8feIP4GftxpLmo=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=nOVttQiGFo3c/MdMMO4/HIHzsjNG0z5pZ3UkLHnyl22zfswQFBztt/ywHfw8ikf27
 6gXXqhyMmGQMou/y8yEocLYTn+ZRfFvTcUzcHR0xpf7lsNBjlGm9aW1LuvM4yHi8Vs
 sYEqxUcbt0piEjeIFsWIv1B9QezRK9fsttxPG9nI=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/95700] read-md.c: "missing sentinel in function call" when
 building gcc with musl
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:40:02 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-95700-4-N9NbkLykMY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95700-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95700-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:40:02 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95700

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
To be really safe during stage 1, GCC should not use NULL as a pointer sent=
inel
in C++ code anyway.

The bootstrap compiler could define it to 0 or 0u, neither of which is
guaranteed to be OK to pass as a varargs sentinel where a null pointer is
expected. Any of (void*)0 or (void*)NULL or nullptr would be safe.=