lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Style Question
Date
On Mar 11, 2007, at 21:32:00, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Mar 11 2007 21:27, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2007, at 19:16:59, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> On Mar 11 2007 18:01, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>>>> 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".
>
>>> I think that the primary reason they use __null is so that you can
>>> actually do[...]
>>
>> Isn't that what I said? :-D
>
> Ya. Though I was picking at
>
>> "__null" builtin, which GCC uses to give type conversion errors
>> for "int foo = NULL"
>
> since C's (void *)0 would also barf when being assigned to int. So
> it's not a genuine __null feature ;-)

You chopped my sentence in half! :-D What I *really* said was:
> ...give type conversion errors for 'int foo = NULL' but not 'char
> *foo = NULL'.

The pseudo-standard "#define NULL (0)" that the C++ standards ask for
does *NOT* give an error for "int foo = NULL;", and in C++ the C-
standard "#define NULL ((void *)0)" *does* give an error for "char
*foo = NULL;" Ergo I think I was correct when I said "GCC uses
[__null] to give type conversion errors for <the-first> but not <the-
second>"

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-03-12 02:47    [W:0.037 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site