On 24.02.2020 21:18, Mouse wrote: >>> If we use 0x0, it can be a valid pointer. > >>> If we use NULL, it's not expected to work and will eventually >>> generate a syntax erro. > > Then someone has severely broken compatability with older versions of > C. 0x0 and (when one of the suitable #includes has been done) NULL > have both historically been perfectly good null pointer constants. > > Also...syntax error? Really? _Syntax_ error?? I'd really like to see > what they've done to the grammar to lead to that; I'm having trouble > imagining how that would be done. > The process of evaluation of the NULL semantics is not a recent thing. Not so long time, still in the NetBSD times, it was a general practice to allow dereferencing the NULL pointer and expect zeroed bytes over there. We still maintain compatibility with this behavior (originated as a hack in PDP11) in older NetBSD releases (NetBSD-0.9 Franz Lisp binaries depend on this). > /~\ The ASCII Mouse > \ / Ribbon Campaign > X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost > / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature