[TUHS] reviving a bit of WWB

[John Cowan]

The confusion (I dare not call it a flame war) is arising out of the
difference between an object with all bits zero and a 0 constant (or
equivalently 2*0 or 3-3 or what not).   0 in pointer context is always a
null pointer, but it may or may not be all-bits-zero.  0 in integer context
is, on any sane machine, all-bits-zero (on 1's-complement machines it may
also be all-bits-one).

Personally, when I was programming in C I defined a macro #define
NULLPTR(t) ((t)0), so that I would write NULLPTR(char *) or NULLPTR(int *)
or whatever the Right Thing was.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 6:16 PM Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 4:59 PM Steve Nickolas <usotsuki at buric.co> wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that there was explicitly no requirement that
>> a
>> null pointer be 0,
>>
> Indeed, section 7.19 states it is *implementation-defined*.  See my
> previous message.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20200920/94ac7624/attachment.htm>