Because we consider the fact that clang and gcc do this when those functions are not marked with nonnull by the libc to be a bug. Adding it to libc++ would just make another place that we have to fix that bug.
What is the objection to using _Nullable instead of __attribute__(nonnull)? The original motivation in the PSA for this was for better ubsan diagnostics. _Nullable does that for us, and leaves the decision of whether null is allowed up to the libc implementers (assuming the compilers are fixed). On Aug 13, 2015 07:16, "Marshall Clow" <mclow.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Dan Albert <danalb...@google.com> wrote: > >> My testing was varied. I could not get GCC or clang to optimize it away >> for Linux, but both did for ARM Android. >> > > Then I don't understand your objection to this change, then. > > On your platform, the effect of this change is (therefore) a compile-time > warning when you pass (a constant) NULL to a set of functions that are > documented to require non-null parameters. > > -- Marshall > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
