HI Jeff et al.,
Forgot to ask in my previous email... Is this Ok for trunk?
-Balaji V. Iyer.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:02 PM
> To: 'Jeff Law'
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] pr57457
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law
> > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:50 AM
> > To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457
> >
> > On 05/31/2013 07:54 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > > This patch will fix a bug reported in PR57457. One of the array notation
> > function was not checking for NULL_TREE before accessing its fields. This
> patch
> > should fix that issue. A test case is also added.
> > >
> > > Is this OK for trunk?
> > >
> > > Here are the ChangeLog Entries:
> > >
> > > gcc/c/ChangeLog
> > > 2013-05-31 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
> > >
> > > * c-array-notation.c (is_cilkplus_reduce_builtin): Added a check
> > > for
> > > NULL_TREE parameter input.
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> > > 2013-05-31 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
> > >
> > > PR c/57457
> > > * c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/pr57457.c: New testcase.
> > So what you need to do is explain how you got into this function with a NULL
> > fndecl and why that's OK.
>
> Hi Jeff,
> I looked into it, and there is another function call called
> inform_declaration, and that does exactly what I did (i.e. check for NULL
> fundecl
> before accessing its fields). From what I can tell, fundecl will be NULL_TREE
> if a
> function declaration is a function pointer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Balaji V. Iyer.
>
> >
> > ie, it's easy to sprinkle tests for NULL pointers in the sources to change
> > behaviour, but it's more important to look at why we're getting a NULL
> > pointer
> > at any particular point and decide if it's valid or not.
> >
> > You've probably already done the analysis, you just need to make sure to
> include
> > it in the patch submission. That way the reviewer can easily see the
> > change is
> > correct and the analysis is preserved for future reference.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Jeff
