It's not better to have two different functions/entry points, one for when
we have/need a CValue and other without it ?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Michael Matz <matz....@frakked.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, grischka wrote:
>
> Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2014-03-15 20:10, mobi phil a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> get_tok_str is called in several places with second parameter NULL,
>>>>
>>>> though inside members (thus dereferencing NULL) is possible.
>>>>
>>>> Probably this combination "bad" never happens, but would like to use
>>>> this function to understand the code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it ought to be fixed. The solution would be simple:
>>>
>>> CValue cval;
>>>
>>> if (!cv) {
>>> cval.ull = 0;
>>> cv = &cval;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't fix anything except that it allows adding invalid
>> code more easily. ;)
>>
>
> Actually it does. get_tok_str only needs a CValue for certain tokens,
> exactly those that aren't self-describing (keywords and identifiers are,
> numbers for instance aren't). So depending on the caller of get_tok_str
> (usually warning or error message printers) it's quite normal to simply not
> have any CValue and only a token. It would be unreasonable to require such
> callers to pass an invented CValue. Such invention can also be hidden
> centrally inside get_tok_str.
>
>
> Ciao,
> Michael.
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
