On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:21:47PM +0000, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > > AHAHAHAHAHA I totally missed that part in the first read. You're > > totally on crack. Under C, NULL is defined as (void *)0 > > (and *NOT* (char *)0 that is TOTALLY wrong for obvious reasons), and > > "someone" is not going to #define NULL 0. > > It is defined like that on some OSs.
Not in Debian, and dpkg is mostly a Debian tool, working on the glibc,
that defines NULL the proper way.
> It's perfectly valid to do that.
No it's not, and OSes that do, are not C99 compliant (and not even C89 IIRC,
but I've no C89 spec at hand to check).
> In case of stdarg you need to cast NULL to a pointer.
That's the very reason why NULL shall be a pointer.
Here is the relevant C99 quote:
§ 7.17 Common definitions <stddef.h>
[...]
3 The macros are
NULL
which expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant; and
0 is not a pointer, hence disqualifies.
Cheers,
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpSZTl8htzfa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
