Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:32:31 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> Cc: mark@grondar.org Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 vs 0L bikeshed time Message-ID: <20040301173231.GA61430@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <200403011707.i21H7bY96897@lakes.dignus.com> References: <xzpoergtt6z.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200403011707.i21H7bY96897@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 12:07:37PM -0500, Thomas David Rivers wrote: > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > DES > > --=20 > > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no >=20 > =20 > That assignment seems to work... I thought (void *) was assignable to > any function pointer... (Isn't (void *) assignable to any pointer?) To any _object_ pointer, not to a function pointer. Null pointers are special however. --=20 <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040301173231.GA61430>