Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:43:25 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: marcel@xcllnt.net Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64-bit NULL: a followup Message-ID: <20031128.234325.35797703.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20031129055619.GA48381@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20031129005823.GA20090@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031129161509.J4841@gamplex.bde.org> <20031129055619.GA48381@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20031129055619.GA48381@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> writes:
: Ok, so what is better (void*)0 or 0L?
Short answer:
Yes. "Is it quicker to Philadelphia or by bus?"
Longer answer:
Each definition helps to flush out certain kinds of bugs while
papering over other kinds of bugs. It needs to be 0L for C++, but in
C either is fine. I have traditionally had the opposite in my tree
than what the current FreeBSD definition is to catch the other kinds
of bugs that others don't see with the default definition. Neither
one is clearly better or worse than the other in the general case.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031128.234325.35797703.imp>