[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Use NULL instead of integer 0 in security/selinux/
Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> Is doing memset(&(struct with_embeded_pointers), 0, sizeof(struct))
> also wrong?
> I don't see that 0 is WRONG. I do agree that ``((void *)0)'' is
> slightly more typesafe than ``0'', but since we don't have a lot of
> (void *) pointers in the kernel that is still the WRONG pointer type.
> I do see that NULL has superior readability and maintainability and so
> should be encouraged by Documentation/CodingStyle.
> The B and K&R roots of a simple single type language are what give C
> most of it's simplicity flexibility and power. Please don't be so
> eager to throw those out.
> You want to be so typesafe it sounds like you want to recode the
> kernel in Pascal. You've written sparse, so it should be just a little
> more work to write a Pascal backend. After that the kernel will be so
> typesafe the compiler won't let us poor programmers get it wrong.

You say that as if it were a bad thing...

I don't have a current C standard handy, but I believe there's a
requirement that otherwise uninitialized static pointers be initialized
to NULL even if that isn't "all bits off."

-bill davidsen (
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.212 / U:4.296 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site