[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: definition of NULL correct?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 07:57:14PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> I asked fairly good C language lawyer I'm acquainted with (Peter
> Seebach) about this. He says that "there's nothing saying "sizeof
> NULL" has to work".
Why not, given that "sizeof 10" works, and NULL is ultimately supposed
to be just another constant expression? Unless there's a specific
escape hatch for null pointer constants, it ought to at least be
Whether the value it generates is useful is a different matter... :-)
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |