Article View: comp.std.c
Article #3155Re: gcc and NULL function pointers.
From: Peter da Silva
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 15:01
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 15:01
15 lines
1247 bytes
1247 bytes
In article <1991Jun19.182420.12673@athena.mit.edu> scs@adam.mit.edu writes: > I share Lars's disgust. Why? The "best" definition for "NULL" is entirely compiler/hardware dependent. *Most* of the time 0 is unequivocally correct. There are, however, computers and compilers for which ((void *)0) is more useful. No more "correct", from a standpoint of satisfying the ANSI standard, but more practical for people who want to port programs to that platform. And that's the point of *having* a standard for the language, after all. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<ND1CKO3@xds13.ferranti.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peterReferences:
<EE-B=O2@xds13.ferranti.com> <FISCHER.91Jun18210809@cauchy.iesd.auc.dk> <1991Jun19.182420.12673@athena.mit.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: gcc and NULL function pointers. Message-ID: <ND1CKO3@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 20 Jun 91 15:01:54 GMT References: <EE-B=O2@xds13.ferranti.com> <FISCHER.91Jun18210809@cauchy.iesd.auc.dk> <1991Jun19.182420.12673@athena.mit.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 15