![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Miles Bader wrote: > "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes: > >> What's wrong with using 0 as the NULL pointer? In contexts where > >> a plain 0 is unsafe, NULL is usually unsafe as well. > > > > It's a general sparse cleanup people are doing across the entire tree. > > It's the "proper" way to do pointer comparisons post-K&R. > > But 0 in such a context isn't an integer, it's a pointer... No it's not. I'm sorry that you are such a K&R-C bigot that you don't like type checking. But the kernel DOES like type checking, and the kernel is not K&R C. The kernel uses strict ANSI, and in fact, is _more_ strict than ANSI C is in many many ways. One of the "strict typechecking" rules is that you don't mix integers and pointers by mistake. The fact that C allows dual usage of the integer "0" is an anachronism that should have been fixed long ago. Final word: K&R C without prototypes etc is still "legal C". That doesn't make it legal kernel code. Linus - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||