On Mar 11 2007 18:01, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2007, at 16:41:51, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>> On Sunday 11 March 2007 16:35:50 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> > On Mar 11 2007 22:15, Cong WANG wrote:
>> > > So can I say using NULL is better than 0 in kernel?
>> >
>> > On what basis? Do you even know what NULL is defined as in (C, not
>> > C++) userspace? Think about it.
>>
>> IIRC, the glibc and GCC headers define NULL as (void*)0 :)
>
> 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". A "((void *)0)"
> definition gives C++ type errors for both due to the broken C++
> void pointer conversion problems.
I think that the primary reason they use __null is so that you can
actually do
class foo *ptr = NULL;
because
class foo *ptr = (void *)0;
would throw an error or at least a warning (implicit cast from void*
to class foo*).
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
