https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 17:37:42 2015
New Revision: 223401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223401root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon May 18 21:52:03 2015
New Revision: 223320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223320root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-18 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 05:39:44PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
The above patch is good enough to catch the direct use
of NULL() in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:52:24PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Index: check.c
===
---
