On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> 0 is not a pointer. So do not compare pointers to 0.
>
> Do not return 0 from functions with a pointer return
> type.
>
> Problem identified with Coccinelle.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt
> ---
> v2
> Fix more occurenc
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:04:40PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Heinrich,
>
> In message <20171110204634.20515-1-xypron.g...@gmx.de> you wrote:
> > 0 is not a pointer. So do not compare pointers to 0.
>
> Who says so? 0 can be the value of a pointer to a valid, existing
> address. For exa
Dear Heinrich,
In message <20171110204634.20515-1-xypron.g...@gmx.de> you wrote:
> 0 is not a pointer. So do not compare pointers to 0.
Who says so? 0 can be the value of a pointer to a valid, existing
address. For example a large number of Power Architecture systems
map the RAM beginning at ph
On 11/12/2017 09:02 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
Hello Heinrich,
On 11/10/2017 09:46 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
0 is not a pointer. So do not compare pointers to 0.
Do not return 0 from functions with a pointer return
type.
Problem identified with Coccinelle.
Perhaps you can elaborate on w
Hello Heinrich,
On 11/10/2017 09:46 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
0 is not a pointer. So do not compare pointers to 0.
Do not return 0 from functions with a pointer return
type.
Problem identified with Coccinelle.
Perhaps you can elaborate on what problem you are solving? As far as I
know i
0 is not a pointer. So do not compare pointers to 0.
Do not return 0 from functions with a pointer return
type.
Problem identified with Coccinelle.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt
---
v2
Fix more occurences of the problem.
v1
[PATCH 1/1] malloc: compare pointer to NULL not to
6 matches
Mail list logo