On 04/23/2015 11:34 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
It seems also weird we do not warn directly for '*(int *)0' in the C/C++
FE.
Agreed.
Using decl_with_nonnull_addr_p doesn't make sense for reference variables,
since we're using their pointer value rather than their address.
Is an extra check needed at all (can &reference ever be false)?
No, I don't think we need any extra check here.
The discussion (and perhaps the patch) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/PR65168 may be relevant.
Yes, I thought this sounded familiar...
I think this case requires a slightly different text because the address
may not evaluate to 'true' and also because it is not actually the
address of the reference but the object bounded to the reference.
I agree with the first point, but C++ (unfortunately) uses "address" to
refer both to the actual numerical address and the result of the &
operator. So I think it's OK to use the word in the latter sense here.
The testcases:
int fii(int *p) {
int &r=*p;
return !&r;
}
int fii(int p) {
int &r=p;
return !&r;
}
should also generate the same warning in my opinion.
Agreed.
Jason
