Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:19:14 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>, current@freebsd.org, mark@grondar.org Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 vs 0L bikeshed time Message-ID: <20040301161914.GA59382@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20040301142145.GA59401@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <200402291546.i1TFkZ0w070591@grimreaper.grondar.org> <200403011315.i21DFvC95798@lakes.dignus.com> <20040301142145.GA59401@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 03:21:45PM +0100, 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? > (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?) On i386, we can compile IP32L64. -- 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?20040301161914.GA59382>