Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:02:11 +1000 From: Zero Sum <count@shalimar.net.au> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net>, Heath Nielson <heath@cs.byu.edu> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>, 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: <200110161002.f9GA2CA08544@shalimar.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20011016013834.E293@blossom.cjclark.org> References: <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
On Tuesday 16 October 2001 18:38, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> >
> > setenv("TEST1", "", 1);
> > setenv("TEST2", NULL, 1);
>
> A huge difference. In the first case, the second argument is a
> pointer aimed at a string which contains the bytes, '\0'. In the
> second case, we have a null pointer. Null pointers point at nothing.
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?
--
Zero Sum<count@shalimar.net.au> Vescere bracis meis
But remember, please, the Law by which we live,
We are not built to comprehend a lie.
We can neither live nor pity, nor forgive,
If you make a slip in handling us you die!
--The Secret of the Machines-- Rudyard Kipling
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?200110161002.f9GA2CA08544>