2013/8/14 Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>: >> - void *fdt; >> + void *fdt = 0; > > This should be NULL. NULL doesn't have to be 0 according to C IIRC.
The last statement is wrong here, NULL is always the same as 0 language-wise. Although the above code is always correct, some will consider it better style to use NULL when dealing with pointer context. What you probably meant is that the *internal representation* of a null pointer is not guaranteed to be all-0-bits, in contrast to the conceptual null pointer constant (== 0) understood and taken care of by the compiler. But the internal representation is irrelevant here. http://c-faq.com/null/ Felix
