Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:23:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Jon Mini <mini@FreeBSD.ORG>, Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NULL Message-ID: <200208210323.g7L3NTR04362@arch20m.dellroad.org> In-Reply-To: <20020821114425.Q26007-100000@gamplex.bde.org> "from Bruce Evans at Aug 21, 2002 12:10:47 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans writes: > In C, 0 and ((void *)0) are just 2 of many different correct definitions > of NULL. They cause different warnings and error in broken code, so > it may be useful to try compiling with both in an attempt to detect > more errors. So my vote is for NULL = "((void *)0)" when compiling C code (and leaving "0" when compiling C++, which can easily be different). This will catch such obvious bugs as "strncmp(s, t, NULL)" which are not caught as it stands now... -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?200208210323.g7L3NTR04362>