------- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de 2005-01-20 15:35 ------- I agree that C++ is special, and that NULL in C++ is only a null pointer constant (but not a null pointer). Hence, yes, strictly speaking a cast would be needed even for NULL in va_lists. But, as a matter of fact, GCC defines __null as an integer node having value zero, and type exactly as wide as a pointer would be (i.e. somewhat similar to 0L). So, giving this to a va_list, which expects a pointer would work correctly, also on LP64 platforms. This is the reason for the existance of __null (as otherwise we could simply define NULL to "0" and still be completely standard conformant). This suggests that those who implemented __null did it because they wanted to enable its use in situations where in C a lonely "NULL" is enough. As a QOI issue it would be better if this warning wouldn't trigger for this use. In our packages it triggers quite often in C++ code, most of them being false positives. That's in difference to C, where most of these warnings indeed are problems for LP64 platforms. I believe (but haven't verified) that the warning could additionally check for the node being == null_node, and not warn in this case. This wouldn't make the warning less usefull AFAICS, and for C++ would reduce the number of false positives.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19542
