From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov 29 05:40:52 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2175F16A4CE
	for <standards@freebsd.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 05:40:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285B643FEC
	for <standards@freebsd.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 05:40:50 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3p2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA32381;
	Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:40:41 +1100
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:40:41 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
In-Reply-To: <20031129055619.GA48381@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
Message-ID: <20031130003519.M1415@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <20031129005823.GA20090@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
	<20031129055619.GA48381@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: standards@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 64-bit NULL: a followup
X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Standards compliance <freebsd-standards.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-standards>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-standards@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:40:52 -0000

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 04:39:14PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:

> > > Since Erik thinks 0 and 0L are both perfectly good definitions for
> > > NULL and Tony emphasizes that NULL is an integer expression, I think
> >                                      ^^ may be
> > > we should change the definition of NULL to 0L to improve portability
> > > to FreeBSD/LP64. It will definitely fix known breakages on ia64.
> >
> > This would be bogus.  Long doesn't have the same width as `void *' on all
> > machines.
>
> The bogusness doesn't increase if we're looking at widths. It actually
> reduces. The FreeBSD runtime is either ILP32 or LP64. Hence, defining
> NULL as long is better than defining it as int. For those running
> IP32L64, NULL can trivially be redefined as int.

It could be MD in all cases to hide bugs in a MD way.

> > ((void *)0) is better, but I wouldn't change it, except
> > locally to trap errors.
>
> Ok, so what is better (void*)0 or 0L?

I thought the former, but forgot about C++.  There could be ugly ifdefs
for this.

Bruce