From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=yp57=5G=gmail.com=jwakely.gcc@sourceware.org>
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFFB338582BD
	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon,  9 Jan 2023 15:19:48 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EFFB338582BD
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id qk9so20975021ejc.3
        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 09 Jan 2023 07:19:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
        h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
         :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date
         :message-id:reply-to;
        bh=ACox98CdTwhnCvICXUeZO8U7pDbGuMp83PsO46E2cos=;
        b=ElhpOlJti3Ba2gITie6oJR4hjrbI02umMBAQNi2NmzNtxJGztF+0F43Iy8B1Xg9Vhr
         abZjadQlEHhyWA0FVemsCbsi3XGpASuGC8Dcy9jQ11AdTlDzNLaTNyIUltksy7Mtopu9
         S4Pg5/1QxKgClTsdG3/yTL2YlfH1byl1Xo2EjMihU/o8U+a0y4rKCQ2rydUOSrWBWd+5
         Ytn1k22WEJeQUamNfu6z/mtBfrkBSkbx6McqunvOlXL0zTyhngLdeDaPPgPBrNr9jUwc
         dAY2NgV1o8b1LiHIIUPwiOWCVxJKvYrvNyQmmFwbMpEScbbmqxYi0tT3L2RHOh8gDs5k
         daUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
        h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
         :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
         :subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=ACox98CdTwhnCvICXUeZO8U7pDbGuMp83PsO46E2cos=;
        b=OiD4LitF/6DzKi32FLGmhurADoL//3W3GGuswmcvn1zuJywIyW7HUWaNsFtEvxo694
         /FTAbDj0BNTzIQR4hqdA9mz12MKaM3qAH5CgQe7umqNAgoiiLDOLYQShS76zruzaQuHM
         3q6CZ2ZnDqvPwg7R0W8GHzGAhqLtnMprgfnTdgqihasHQil9Z83hZtlBKzajx37ZOug2
         qJOEFN+3Kv3o04ArtRHBCKq0zntdiOzTFNx7LNT2kBt0SN1Nrv1ML6j+v3rY3ngDnOdv
         buoewYWoH8ZJlNGZhgUmTk8YCl1KCY+uldUm3hHP++mlnSvjaCw92+fk3khAA7L0tzOz
         +e6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krWJvO2vlhOKRFo9aBtimQbikz2fYv8e3USQ00Zc4tQ7mXCSVyF
	g1DLlS1CS8kdbMN1jtoE65LasJe9unQWO+tu0tw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXuUI6IbNtnacPeZLzATZH17wZXU5Z1tCwkSfWbC72zUoxwFR+NT4R71GIlr0BfX1xos0jeGb50z9lUOabCvvEg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:e2c4:b0:829:e4f0:bf2b with SMTP id
 gr4-20020a170906e2c400b00829e4f0bf2bmr4269241ejb.389.1673277587703; Mon, 09
 Jan 2023 07:19:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6defa548-2da3-6cba-0372-f1e6c6b64c81@suse.cz> <CA+=Sn1n=pXk-EdgdtsbHpOc-R79GD1UB6R0KS9xA0wjFPwdBHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH6eHdRq5uaVykU1kc6K9cvedZXvM6NMTjRHzKf68H4-W41-8A@mail.gmail.com> <cdfcefd7-fc8f-03e4-a4ac-f2b85e983df0@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <cdfcefd7-fc8f-03e4-a4ac-f2b85e983df0@suse.cz>
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 15:19:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdSaUi9Pi4H95f_GO=uH3AQsY2P=oU3gFGwONjTtw_SDXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove legacy pre-C++ 11 definitions
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=C5=A1ka?= <mliska@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 15:17, Martin Li=C5=A1ka <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/23 19:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Seems to me that GCC code should just use nullptr directly not redefine=
 NULL.
>
> Sure, but that would lead to a huge patch which would rename NULL to null=
ptr, right?


Yeah, which can probably be done separately (or not done at all). I
was just commenting on the comment that Andrew showed. That comment
explain that nullptr is better than 0 as a null pointer constant,
which is a good reason to prefer nullptr. But not a good reason to
redefine NULL; in code with a minimum requirement of C++11 you can
just use nullptr directly.