On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:07 Christopher Bazley, <cs99...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 23:53, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 21:23 Christopher Bazley, <cs99...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 20:40, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, 17:01 Christopher Bazley via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does the lack of support for Clang's nullability qualifiers in GCC >>>>> indicate >>>>> a greater likelihood for my proposed feature to be accepted into GCC? >>>> >>>> >>>> No, I don't think so. I think it would be better to support the same >>>> qualifiers as Clang, not diverge in this way. >>>> >>> >>> Clang’s _Nullable qualifier is broken and pretty useless (even according >>> to the code owner), so good luck with that. >>> >> >> But marking pointer arguments as non-null is already supported in GCC >> (with an attribute on the function, not the argument). Supporting a nonnull >> attribute on individual arguments seems useful to me. Far more than marking >> pointers as maybe-null, which is already true for all pointers. >> > > Sorry, but I get the feeling that you didn’t read my article. If you could > spare the time, it would help you to understand where I’m coming from. > I read it. All. Even though it's very long. And the summary post. And I skimmed the WG14 proposal when that was sent to WG14. And the LLVM discourse thread. I just don't agree with your position on it.
