Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:46:18 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 vs 0L bikeshed time Message-ID: <20040302163959.R8656@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20040301142145.GA59401@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <200402291546.i1TFkZ0w070591@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20040301142145.GA59401@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On a related note, is there some particular reason for having the C++ > definition depend on __LP64__ or could one not just as well define NULL > as (0L) all the time there? Mainly the same reason that 0 was only changed to (void *)0 (sic) for the _KERNEL_ case only, but more so: the type sizes may be different so sloppy but working code may break. > (I.e. is there any platform FreeBSD runs on that have 32-bit longs and > 64-bit pointers, or does all of them have pointers and long being the > same size?) Someone mentioned that i386's can have 64-bit longs (IP32L64). I had this booting and running most utilities, but it couldn't quite build itself and I haven't run it for a year or two. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040302163959.R8656>