Op 8-10-2015 om 11:27 schreef René J.V. Bertin: > Hi, > > A bit of a generic question, for my personal education. I saw a comment in a > code review recently (one related to making Qt build on OS X 10.11, probably) > about the preferred use of 0 instead of NULL. > > I didn't realise at first why that remark surprised me somewhere. Now I > remembered having to modify some of my own code to use NULL instead of 0 to > avoid crashing, on 64bit (capable) hardware. I cannot remember the exact > details other than that I ended up with undefined (= possibly non zero) bits > in the more significant 32 bit word, and that at least some of the functions > involved used va_arg. I can also remember slapping my forehead for having > been too lazy to type a few extra characters... > > Is it certain that there are no pitfalls that come with trusting the compiler > to do the proper conversions, on all platforms where Qt is supposed to work? > Did I simply hit a "feature" Qt won't ever encounter because it doesn't use C > (nor va_arg)? > > R. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development Nowadays, for code that you won't need to compile with non C++/11 complient compilers, I'd recommend to use nullptr instead. At least, nullptr will always be interpretted as a pointer.
André _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
