Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Creating pointer with all bits 0 (was: Referencing NULL pointers)
Message-ID: <10993@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 9 Sep 89 01:14:27 GMT
References: <1989Aug31.052756.18524@sq.sq.com> <2030@se-sd.NCR.COM> <1989Sep6.052228.17374@algor2.algorists.com> <10816@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <10816@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> diamond@riks. (Norman Diamond) writes:
>In article <1989Sep6.052228.17374@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
>>Question: Is an implementation whose null pointer is the same as the
>>result of some integer-to-pointer cast conforming?  Apparently not,
>>since 3.2.2.3 states, "... a null pointer is guaranteed to compare
>>unequal to a pointer to any object or function."

The code is already not strictly conforming, since the requisite cast
is implementation-dependent.

>This looks like a bit of a problem all right.  Can it still be fixed
>by editorial change?  For example, "... any legally created object or
>function" or "... any C object or function."

It's not a problem.  The Standard only talks about objects and functions
in its context; they're technical C-specific terms.