On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:14 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On 24/06/20 12:31 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > >Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux, ppc64le-redhat-linux > >and s390x-redhat-linux. > > > >Ok for master? > > > >--- > > > >Bootstrap with musl libc fails with numerous "missing sentinel in > >function call" errors. This is because musl defines NULL as 0L for C++, > >but gcc requires sentinel value to be a pointer or __null. > > > >Jonathan Wakely says: > > > > To be really safe during stage 1, GCC should not use NULL as a > > pointer sentinel in C++ code anyway. > > > > The bootstrap compiler could define it to 0 or 0u, neither of which > > is guaranteed to be OK to pass as a varargs sentinel where a null > > pointer is expected. Any of (void*)0 or (void*)NULL or nullptr > > would be safe. > > > >Therefore, fix by replacing NULL sentinels with nullptr. > > For some additional context, the C++ standard guarantees that passing > nullptr to a varargs function will convert to (void*)0. That has been > true since nullptr was added in C++11.
Is there a diagnostic option that we can turn on so no NULLs will creep in in such position? Without that we'll bitrot quickly? Richard. >
