Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:17:28 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: schweikh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: standards/50889: NULL defined as 0 instead of (void *)0 Message-ID: <20030421230733.J11214@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20030421104840.GA92922@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <20030416125715.GA12300@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20030416172723.GA13575@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20030421104840.GA92922@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:01:06AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > I have a #define in my tree that I switch back and forth from time to
> > time:
> >
> > #if defined(_cplusplus) || !defined(_NULL_VOID)
> > #define NULL 0L
>
> Why not just plain 0?
> I think either will work fine so it doesn't matter really matter much
> but I am a bit curious.
Different types of integer for NULL can expose (or hide) bugs like:
foo(NULL); /* No prototype in scope. */
...
int foo(void *) { ... }
Bruce
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030421230733.J11214>