Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:19:03 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64-bit NULL: a followup Message-ID: <20031129081903.GA98342@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20031128.234325.35797703.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20031129005823.GA20090@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031129161509.J4841@gamplex.bde.org> <20031129055619.GA48381@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031128.234325.35797703.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 11:43:25PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20031129055619.GA48381@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> > Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> writes: > : Ok, so what is better (void*)0 or 0L? > > ... It needs to be 0L for C++, but in C either is fine. ... Then there's no question that 0L is better, because it doesn't break C++. Elementary... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031129081903.GA98342>