Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Referencing NULL pointers
Message-ID: <14599@bfmny0.UUCP>
Date: 28 Aug 89 14:14:45 GMT
References: <32UP02Eg3d=801@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1382@bruce.OZ> <1759@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> <10556@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1796@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> <10830@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 14

I would also point out:

 (1) A truly portable application is unlikely to have any legitimate need
	 to mess with things at "real" address 0.  Lots of system-y type programs
	 might have an excuse (it's a manipulable interrupt vector location in
	 the Intel architectures for instance) but by definition they are not
	 very portable.

 (2) In architectures where accessing address 0 is a legitimate concern,
	 good compilers will probably provide a non-ANSI non-portable extension
	 of some kind to let you do it.  The pANS is not a nursemaid.
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET