From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30613 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2012 09:14:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 30595 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2012 09:14:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from seketeli.net (HELO ms.seketeli.net) (91.121.166.71) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:14:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (torimasen.com [82.237.12.13]) by ms.seketeli.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB8FEA040; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:21:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7CCA32C007C; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:14:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Dodji Seketeli To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Jason Merrill , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess warning (take 2) References: <20120816191535.GM1999@tucnak.redhat.com> <5059CF5F.4030308@redhat.com> <20120925153640.GM1787@tucnak.redhat.com> <20121002125629.GJ1787@tucnak.redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.seketeli.net/~dodji Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20121002125629.GJ1787@tucnak.redhat.com> (Jakub Jelinek's message of "Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:56:29 +0200") Message-ID: <877gr7nchu.fsf@seketeli.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00252.txt.bz2 Jakub Jelinek a =C3=A9crit: > --- gcc/cp/call.c.jj 2012-09-27 12:45:49.000000000 +0200 > +++ gcc/cp/call.c 2012-10-01 17:53:17.594609236 +0200 > @@ -557,7 +557,10 @@ null_ptr_cst_p (tree t) > { > /* Core issue 903 says only literal 0 is a null pointer constant. = */ > if (cxx_dialect < cxx0x) > - t =3D integral_constant_value (t); > + { > + t =3D integral_constant_value (t); > + t =3D maybe_constant_value (t); > + } Just for my education, why couldn't maybe_constant_value just call integral_constant_value, so that we just use maybe_constant_value here? Even after reading the comments of these two functions, /having/ to use them like this seems confusing to the casual reader in me. --=20 Dodji