Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:21:16 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NULL Message-ID: <20020821002116.GA33223@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200208202344.g7KNioV03523@arch20m.dellroad.org> References: <200208202344.g7KNioV03523@arch20m.dellroad.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:44:50PM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Simple question...
> Why isn't NULL defined to be "((void *)0)" instead of "0" ?
In C++ this is not legal:
void blah(void) {
int *foo;
void *bar;
bar = foo;
foo = bar;
}
it is in C, but we share the definition.
A benefit of "(void *)0" is that this would be caught:
char c = NULL;
rather than the correct:
char c = '\0';
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020821002116.GA33223>