Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:42:28 +0100
From:      des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=)
To:        Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: NULL vs 0 vs 0L bikeshed time
Message-ID:  <xzpoergtt6z.fsf@dwp.des.no>
In-Reply-To: <200402291546.i1TFkZ0w070591@grimreaper.grondar.org> (Mark Murray's message of "Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:46:35 %2B0000")
References:  <200402291546.i1TFkZ0w070591@grimreaper.grondar.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> writes:
> I'd like to commit the following patch. It makes sure that for C
> and the kernel, NULL is a ((void *)0)

This is not correct, because it makes NULL unusable for function
pointers; you can assign 0 to a function pointer, but not (void *)0.

DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpoergtt6z.fsf>