On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:55:37PM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2015, Henry Vermaak wrote: > >On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:59:52PM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > >>if that were the case, argc would not have been introduced, which is > >>why I doubt the use of this argument ? > >> > >>C code that regards nil as the last element of the argv array is just wrong. > > > >The C standard says that argv[argc] shall be a null pointer. > > So if argc is 15, there should be no problem to have a Nil at position 5 ?
The standard also says that argv[0] to argv[argc-1] shall contain pointers to strings. NULL is not a pointer to a string, so that would be a problem. Henry _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
