Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Use NULL instead of integer 0 in security/selinux/ | From | Alexandre Oliva <> | Date | 10 Jul 2004 18:53:12 -0300 |
| |
On Jul 9, 2004, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 09:43:18PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> >> most clear? These are all "logically" correct, for the most part, but >> as humans we have certain readability standards.
> Nope, B is undefined.
Nope, B is implementation-defined. The conversion from pointers to integers is implementation-defined, and it's meant to be unsurprising to those familiar with the architecture. I.e., if you can zero-initialize a pointer and get a NULL pointer back, it's quite likely that a NULL pointer will convert back to (int)0, even though it's not required by the C Standard AFAICT.
>> int some_function(int a, void *b, char *c, unsigned char d, int e);
>> B) int res = some_function(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL);
-- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |