RE: nullable pointers [LWN.net]

RE: nullable pointers

Posted Mar 31, 2011 19:04 UTC (Thu) by mister_m (guest, #72633)
In reply to: RE: nullable pointers by HelloWorld
Parent article: GCC 4.6.0 released

I am a bit of a novice. Would you mind explaining how I would enable the compiler to do that? I am missing some programming knowlege in this area I think = perhaps a suer defined type? In school, we always set unused pointers to null, and then check for null to see if we can dereference whatever is at the other end.

(Log in to post comments)

RE: nullable pointers

Posted Mar 31, 2011 20:36 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

> I am a bit of a novice. Would you mind explaining how I would enable the compiler to do that?
Unless you're the one writing the compiler, you can't. Of course, you could just use a language that does this by default, like Haskell or OCaml.

RE: nullable pointers

Posted Apr 12, 2011 16:04 UTC (Tue) by oelewapperke (guest, #74309) [Link]

The essence of the trick is that you simply make a type difference between "filled in" pointers and "null" pointers.

A tree would be defined like so :

abstract class TreeNode {}
abstract class EmptyTreeNode extends TreeNode {}
abstract class FilledTreeNode extends TreeNode {
TreeNode first;
TreeNode second;
}

If you combine this with runtime polymorphism you can do something like this (won't work in Java, but I'm using java code anyway)

void processTreeNode(EmptyTreeNode et) {}
void processTreeNode(FilledTreeNode ft) {
// you might want to do something useful here
processTreeNode(ft.first);
processTreeNode(ft.second);
// or here
}

then simply call processTreeNode(tree), and the compiler would figure out whether to call the first or the second function.

I would love for java to support this though.