[PATCH] D11948: Add some macros to abstract marking of parameters as "not null", and use them in <cstring>

[Dan Albert via cfe-commits]

Because we consider the fact that clang and gcc do this when those
functions are not marked with nonnull by the libc to be a bug. Adding it to
libc++ would just make another place that we have to fix that bug.

What is the objection to using _Nullable instead of __attribute__(nonnull)?
The original motivation in the PSA for this was for better ubsan
diagnostics. _Nullable does that for us, and leaves the decision of whether
null is allowed up to the libc implementers (assuming the compilers are
fixed).
On Aug 13, 2015 07:16, "Marshall Clow" <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote:
>
>> My testing was varied. I could not get GCC or clang to optimize it away
>> for Linux, but both did for ARM Android.
>>
>
> Then I don't understand your objection to this change, then.
>
> On your platform, the effect of this change is (therefore) a compile-time
> warning when you pass (a constant) NULL to a set of functions that are
> documented to require non-null parameters.
>
> -- Marshall
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150813/a559a1f4/attachment-0001.html>