http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> 2011-11-28 13:58:02 UTC --- On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 07:51:02AM +0000, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308 > > --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-28 > 07:51:02 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #2) > > - conf2 (is_bind_c); > > + if (!(name && (strcmp(name, "c_null_ptr") == 0 || strcmp(name, > > "c_null_funptr") == 0))) > > + conf2 (is_bind_c); > > I think one should use "if (!is_iso_c)". And why do you keep the save > attribute? I think the following should work as well. I kept the SAVE attribute because the comment (which you remove in your patch) claims that it is needed to actually allow the the compiler to initialize c_null_ptr and c_null_funptr to NULL. I did not go through the code to validate the comment's claim. I did not use is_iso_c because I forgot about its existence. If your patch passes regression testing, go ahead and commit it.
