https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
Fabio Alemagna <falemagn at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |falemagn at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Alemagna <falemagn at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to petschy from comment #0)
> > For c++11 and later code, why is NULL defined as __null, rather than
> > nullptr?
>
> Because defining NULL as nullptr would violate the requirements of the
> standard, which very intentionally says that NULL is an integral constant
> expression, not nullptr.
I don't know how autoritative is it, but cppreference.com says that since
C++11, NULL is
an integer literal with value zero, or a prvalue of type std::nullptr_t
See: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/NULL
