Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:37:26 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Zero Sum <count@shalimar.net.au> Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net>, Heath Nielson <heath@cs.byu.edu>, David Marker <marker_d@yahoo.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: setenv() cores with NULL value [was Re: Gdm proplem on 4.4] Message-ID: <200110161337.f9GDbQ731430@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:02:11 %2B1000." <200110161002.f9GA2CA08544@shalimar.net.au> References: <200110161002.f9GA2CA08544@shalimar.net.au> <200110160353.f9G3rO728525@harmony.village.org> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110152249220.8479-100000@organ.cs.byu.edu> <20011016013834.E293@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200110161002.f9GA2CA08544@shalimar.net.au> Zero Sum writes: : I had that out with a compiler manufacturer long, long ago. At that : time it was a requirement for a 'correct' C compiler to regard a null : pointer and a pointer to a null string as sematically equivalent. : : Has this changed without me noticing? Yes. A NULL pointer and a NULL string are two different things. Check the archives for a long explaination with pointers to the standard. The compiler mfg was right and you were not, at least with the modern definitions. We've been through this a large number of times as a search of the archives will show. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110161337.f9GDbQ731430>