Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:47:19 +0100 From: Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.narf.at> To: Mark Murray <markm@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 vs 0L bikeshed time Message-ID: <20040301224712.GB959@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> In-Reply-To: <200403012158.i21LwS0w084961@grimreaper.grondar.org> References: <20040301213454.GA959@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> <200403012158.i21LwS0w084961@grimreaper.grondar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:58:28PM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > Stefan Farfeleder writes: > > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 03:46:35PM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > > > > -#define NULL 0L > > > +#define NULL (0L) > > > > What's the point of parenthesizing 0L? > > Its two lexical elements. I got into the habit of doing that when a > macro replacement bit me some years ago. It is a very unimportant part > of the patch. :-) While I agree that it's quite unimportant, I have to contradict you. `OL' is a pp-number which is converted to an integer-constant in translation phase 7 according to the C standard. It always is a single token. Cheers, Stefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040301224712.GB959>