[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 01:11:35 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: NULL
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:46:28PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 01/13/2013 11:47:32 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> >> So I think you're saying is that the behavior I'm depending on
> >changed?
> >
> >well,
> >
> >(int)(void*)0 is not an "integer constant expression" and it
> >is not a "null pointer constant",
>
> C99 6.3.2.3: An integer constant expression with the value 0, or
> such an expression cast to type void *, is called a null pointer
> constant.
>
> 7.17 #3: The macros are NULL which expands to an
> implementation-defined null pointer constant;
>
> So it uses "constant" in the name but either it's not a constant or
> typecasting it twice makes it stop being a constant.
Basically, the latter. It may still be a constant, but it's neither an
integer constant expression (this is a very restricted category of
expressions) not a null pointer constant.
In any case, this thread has gotten WAY off-topic, going all over the
place into territory about the merits and demerits of different
languages and anti-FSF politics. Those topics may be worth discussing
in some contexts, but it seems to have left everybody really confused
about the issues at hand, which are:
- whether we should work around broken programs that pass NULL to
variadic functions
- and if so, how
The emerging consensus seems to be using
#define NULL 0L
unconditionally in both C and C++ mode.
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.
