[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:0.021 / U:9.864 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site