Re: [TUHS] reviving a bit of WWB

Steve Nickolas wrote in &lt;alpine.DEB.2.21.2009201654300.10605(a)sd-119843.dedibox.fr&gt;: |On Sun, 20 Sep 2020, Doug McIlroy wrote: | |>> (Of course, that assumes NULL is 0, but I don't think I've run into any |>> architecture so braindead as to not have NULL=0.) |> |> It has nothing to do with machine architecture. The C standard |> says 0 coerces to the null pointer. NULL, defined in <stddef.h>, |> is part of the library, not the language. I always use 0, |> because NULL is a frill. |> |> Doug | |I was under the impression that there was explicitly no requirement that a |null pointer be 0, and that there was at least one weird system where that |wasn't true - that it just so happened that null points to 0 on certain |CPUs and that 0=NULL *happens* to work on most CPUs but wasn't guaranteed. |(In fact, I read that my habit of using 0 for NULL relied on a faulty |assumption!) | |I mean, I've never actually used a CPU/OS/compiler where it wasn't true, |but... I remember having to use __null for __GNUC__>=3 because 0x0 (what is used for my NIL macro before, this was C++) did not work out well. (Could have been compiler bug, of course .. but i just remembered it when reading your post.) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)