On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:16 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> uhh, of course it is. That's what I did in [1] for Consts. Doing it
> this way means we'll not need to modify the constant folding code (or
> whichever other code wants to know when an Expr can't be NULL) every
> time we think of something new that we can prove can't be NULL.
OK. Here is an updated patch that does that. (There is some overlap
in changes to expr_is_nonnullable with the patch you mentioned.)
- Richard