>> I note that struct pkthdr includes a pointer.  Is it correct to
>> deduce that NetBSD doesn't care about the nonportability of using
>> bzero/memset on a pointer?  (There is nothing in C that requires
>> that all-0-bits be anything meaningful, or even copyable, as a
>> pointer value, much less a nil pointer.  [...])
> We, being the implementors of the compiler and the runtime
> environment, can decide that all-0-bits is a null pointer.

I thought we were just using gcc, which would mean that we aren't the
implementors of the compiler.

I also thought there was an explicit goal that NetBSD stuff be
compilable on other systems that support ANSI C, with their native
compilers, which *definitely* aren't under "our" control.

> (nitpick: not nil)

No?  What's the difference between a null pointer and a nil pointer?  I
have always thought them just two terms for the same thing, and have
always preferred "nil pointer" because there are too many things
similar enough to "null" to be confusing, perhaps most notably NULL,
which is not necessarily a pointer.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B