On Thu, 25 May 2023 18:58:04 +0200
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2023 18:54:06 +0100
> "Roger Sayle" <roger@nextmovesoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> > My understanding is that GCC's preferred null value for rtx is NULL_RTX
> > (and for tree is NULL_TREE), and by being typed allows strict type checking,
> > and use with function polymorphism and template instantiation.
> > C++'s nullptr is preferred over NULL and 0 for pointer types that don't
> > have a defined null of the correct type.
> > 
> > This minor clean-up uses NULL_RTX consistently in i386-expand.cc.  
> 
> Oh. Well, i can't resist cleanups :)

> (and handle nullptr too, and the same game for tree)

so like the attached. And
sed -e 's/RTX/TREE/g' -e 's/rtx/tree/g' \
  < ~/coccinelle/gcc-rtx-null.0.cocci \
  > ~/coccinelle/gcc-tree-null.0.cocci

I do not know if we want to shorten explicit NULL comparisons.
 foo == NULL => !foo and foo != NULL => foo
Left them alone in the form they were written.

See the attached result of the rtx hunks, someone would have to build
it and hack git-commit-mklog.py --changelog 'Use NULL_RTX.'
to print("{}.".format(random.choice(['Ditto', 'Same', 'Likewise']))) ;)

> 
> Just a thought..

cheers,