[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 01:42:54 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: NULL
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:56:02PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 05:02:29 AM, John Spencer wrote:
> >glibc defines NULL as __null: a magic variable supplied by GCC and
> >compatibles which always has pointer context.
> >
> >musl defines NULL to 0 in C++.
> >this is correct per the standard, but breaks a lot of software on
> >64bit archs,
> >because it promotes to int.
>
> The C99 standard section 7.17 defines the NULL macro as:
>
> expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant
>
> Which means it has pointer type. So either we can typecast it to
Nope, C is weirder than you think. A "null pointer constant" is
defined as an integer constant expression with value zero, or such an
expression cast to void *. So it need not have pointer type.
> void *, or we can rely on the LP64 standard (Linux, FreeBSD, and
> macosX all support) which says that long and pointer are always the
> same size on both 32 bit and 64 bit, so trivial fix would be #define
> NULL to (0L)
Yes, using 0L on both C and C++ is the solution I'm leaning towards..
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
