On 1/9/23 16:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 15:17, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/23 19:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> Seems to me that GCC code should just use nullptr directly not redefine
>>> NULL.
>>
>> Sure, but that would lead to a huge patch which would rename NULL to
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 15:17, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 1/6/23 19:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Seems to me that GCC code should just use nullptr directly not redefine
> > NULL.
>
> Sure, but that would lead to a huge patch which would rename NULL to nullptr,
> right?
Yeah, which can probably
On 1/6/23 19:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Seems to me that GCC code should just use nullptr directly not redefine NULL.
Sure, but that would lead to a huge patch which would rename NULL to nullptr,
right?
Martin
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, 17:21 Andrew Pinski, wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 4:21 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > As mentioned in the PRs, both are defined in C++ 11
> > which is a version we depend on.
> >
> > Ready to be installed now?
>
> There is another #define NULL below:
> /* System headers ma
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 4:21 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> As mentioned in the PRs, both are defined in C++ 11
> which is a version we depend on.
>
> Ready to be installed now?
There is another #define NULL below:
/* System headers may define NULL to be an integer (e.g. 0L), which cannot be
used s
As mentioned in the PRs, both are defined in C++ 11
which is a version we depend on.
Ready to be installed now?
Thanks,
Martin
PR middle-end/108311
PR middle-end/108312
gcc/ChangeLog:
* system.h (va_copy): Remove as it is defined in C++ 11.
(NULL): Likewise.
---
