[RFC] CHECK_TYPEDEF

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:37:59PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Do you think the case of a NULL type is at all common?  I bet
> > everything that uses CHECK_TYPEDEF then looks inside the type, so if
> > we want null type checks, they'd be more useful before the
> > CHECK_TYPEDEF than inside it.
> 
> Well, I don't think checking for null falls within the definition
> of CHECK_TYPEDEF's purpose -- other than that CHECK_TYPEDEF should
> not crash.  How about this?

In my opinion, we'll mostly always use the result of CHECK_TYPEDEF;
so whether it crashes when given a bad pointer or not is immaterial
and the check is not useful.  Like the standard argument against
strlen (NULL) == 0.

That's really a matter of personal style though.  I don't have a
technical objection.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery