From owner-freebsd-stable  Tue Oct 16  6:37:34 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2481237B408
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6])
	by rover.village.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9GDbTV09691;
	Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:37:29 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9GDbQ731430;
	Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:37:27 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Message-Id: <200110161337.f9GDbQ731430@harmony.village.org>
To: Zero Sum <count@shalimar.net.au>
Subject: Re: setenv() cores with NULL value [was Re: Gdm proplem on 4.4] 
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
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:02:11 +1000."
		<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> 
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:37:26 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-stable.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-stable>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-stable>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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