https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #0) > musl has the following commit: > https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/ > ?id=c8a9c22173f485c8c053709e1dfa0a617cb6be1a, which suggests that C++ (as > opposed to plain C) should allow plain (uintptr_t)0 as a sentinel value. I don't understand. musl uses a null pointer constant of type long (i.e. 0L) so where does the suggestion to allow (uintptr_t)0 come from? If C provided a UINTPTR_C macro to produce an integer literal of type uintptr_t then UINTPTR_C(0) would be a valid sentinel. I assume that doesn't exist because C doesn't need such a type (because defining NULL to (void*)0 avoids this problem).
