Re: NULL pointer arithmetic issues

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>>>> If we use 0x0, it can be a valid pointer.
>>>> If we use NULL, it's not expected to work and [...]
>> Then someone has severely broken compatability with older versions
>> of C.  [...]
> The process of evaluation of the NULL semantics is not a recent
> thing.

No, it's not.  But I was talking about the equivalence of 0x0 and NULL
(in pointer contexts), not about what happens when you indirect through
the result of converting either to a specific object pointer type.

If 0x0 and NULL do different things in a pointer context, someone has
severely broken backward compatability, regardless of what either of
the "different things" is.  There's a _lot_ of code that depends on the
(historically promised by the spec) assurance that any of the various
historically specified ways of spelling a null pointer constant,
including 0x0 and, with a suitable #include, NULL, _is_ a null pointer
constant.

/~\ 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