On 14.08.2013, at 12:34, Felix Deichmann wrote: > 2013/8/14 Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>: >>> - void *fdt; >>> + void *fdt = 0; >> >> This should be NULL. NULL doesn't have to be 0 according to C IIRC. > > The last statement is wrong here, NULL is always the same as 0 > language-wise. Although the above code is always correct, some will > consider it better style to use NULL when dealing with pointer > context. > What you probably meant is that the *internal representation* of a > null pointer is not guaranteed to be all-0-bits, in contrast to the > conceptual null pointer constant (== 0) understood and taken care of > by the compiler. But the internal representation is irrelevant here. > > http://c-faq.com/null/
Ah, very nice page explaining everything and more I ever wanted to know about NULL ;). Alex
