Fwd: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

[Milian Wolff]

On Freitag, 4. März 2016 10:51:08 CET Kevin Funk wrote:
> Are *we* free of it?
> 
> Simply using this under Clang should tell us about all occurrences:
>   -Werror=undefined-bool-conversion

I think that there where cases in the older code base and they broke with 
clang already and I fixed it. I'm not sure whether I found all of those though 
:)

I'll also take another look.

Cheers

> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
> 
> Subject: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?
> Date: Thursday, March 03, 2016, 10:52:15 PM
> From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
> To: development at qt-project.org
> 
> Found in GCC 6's changelog (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/changes.html):
> > Value range propagation now assumes that the this pointer of C++ member
> > functions is non-null. This eliminates common null pointer checks but also
> > breaks some non-conforming code-bases (such as Qt-5, Chromium, KDevelop).
> > As a temporary work-around -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks can be used.
> > Wrong code can be identified by using -fsanitize=undefined.
> 
> Are we free of such mistakes? Or do we need to enable -fno-delete-null-
> pointer-checks?


-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20160304/5414294b/attachment.sig>