"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jan 30, 2008 7:38 PM, Dongsheng Song <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> See: http://www.linuxonly.nl/docs/2/0_Page_1.html > > It says: > This is because NULL is not of the right type: it is defined as > integer 0 instead of a pointer with the value 0. > > Except that is wrong from what the C99 standard says about the NULL macro: > The macros are > NULL > which expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant
And 0 is a valid null pointer constant. > So no casting is needed as it is already a pointer type if we follow > the C99 standard (I think C90 says the same thing except I don't have > C90 in front of me). A null pointer constant is _not_ a pointer. It is only becomes a pointer when explicitly or implicitly converted to one. Neither is the case here. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."
