Re: telling GCC that a pointer cannot be NULL

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kirkby@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: telling GCC that a pointer cannot be NULL
From: Igor Bukanov <igor@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:11:14 +0200
Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4DCA5A5B.6040501@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <BANLkTimU35Ss1Rfc8CG0=AKur9zzj2C+_A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DCA5A5B.6040501@xxxxxxxxxx>

On 11 May 2011 11:43, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kirkby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Personally I would look at writing portable code, not making it GCC
> specific.

Compiler specific code allows to verify quickly the maximum
performance gain from a particular change without refactoring a
substantial amount of code.

References:
- telling GCC that a pointer cannot be NULL
  - From: Igor Bukanov
- Re: telling GCC that a pointer cannot be NULL
  - From: Dr. David Kirkby

Prev by Date: Re: compile for i386
Next by Date: Re: Question about build warnings.
Previous by thread: Re: telling GCC that a pointer cannot be NULL
Next by thread: Request of clarifications on GPL license
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux