Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: Style Question | Date | Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:01:38 -0400 |
| |
On Mar 11, 2007, at 16:41:51, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Sunday 11 March 2007 16:35:50 Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Mar 11 2007 22:15, Cong WANG wrote: >>> So can I say using NULL is better than 0 in kernel? >> >> On what basis? Do you even know what NULL is defined as in (C, not >> C++) userspace? Think about it. > > IIRC, the glibc and GCC headers define NULL as (void*)0 :)
On the other hand when __cplusplus is defined they define it to the "__null" builtin, which GCC uses to give type conversion errors for "int foo = NULL" but not "char *foo = NULL". A "((void *)0)" definition gives C++ type errors for both due to the broken C++ void pointer conversion problems.
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
- 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/
| |