Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:01:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NULL Message-ID: <200208210101.g7L110m03801@arch20m.dellroad.org> In-Reply-To: <20020821002116.GA33223@dragon.nuxi.com> "from David O'Brien at Aug 20, 2002 05:21:16 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien writes: > > 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'; > When you say "not legal" do you mean it causes an error or a warning? If it's just a warning, then are you saying the reason we don't use (void *)0 is because we would lose the C++ warning to gain the C warning? Seems like a fair trade to me :-) FYI, this question came up when porting some code to redhat Linux, where NULL is defined as (void *)0. Thanks, -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com 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?200208210101.g7L110m03801>