From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar  1 09:11:13 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB8216A4CF
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon,  1 Mar 2004 09:11:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.midgard.homeip.net (h201n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se
	[212.181.162.201])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0F0643D1F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon,  1 Mar 2004 09:11:10 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from ertr1013@student.uu.se)
Received: (qmail 61100 invoked by uid 1001); 1 Mar 2004 17:11:09 -0000
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:11:09 +0100
From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>
To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
Message-ID: <20040301171109.GA61055@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>,
	Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>, current@freebsd.org
References: <200402291546.i1TFkZ0w070591@grimreaper.grondar.org>
	<xzpoergtt6z.fsf@dwp.des.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <xzpoergtt6z.fsf@dwp.des.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>
Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 vs 0L bikeshed time
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:11:13 -0000

On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 05:42:28PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
> 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)
>=20
> This is not correct, because it makes NULL unusable for function
> pointers; you can assign 0 to a function pointer, but not (void *)0.

If it is valid to assign 0 to a function pointer then it is valid to
assign ((void*)0).  They are both null pointer constants
If the compiler does not allow it then it is a compiler bug IMO.

(I am not quite sure if it is actually valid to assign a null pointer
constant to a function pointer, but I think it is, and if it is valid
then any null pointer constant shall work.)


--=20
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013@student.uu.se