Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!cit-vax!wen-king
From: wen-king@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (King Su)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Abandon NULL for (0)
Message-ID: <12163@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: 6 Oct 89 06:09:34 GMT
References: <15571@nswitgould.cs.uts.oz>
Reply-To: wen-king@cit-vax.UUCP (Wen-King Su)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 17

In article <15571@nswitgould.cs.uts.oz> karl_auer_%7801.801@fidogate.fido.oz (1) writes:
>Original to: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com
<There is another good reason not to use '(0)' - in some
>implementations of C, pointers can have different sizes, requiring
>that NULL be sometimes defined as (0), sometimes as (0L) - as with
<almost all 80n86 implementations! Having a #define called NULL allows
>the program cc (or equivalent) to pick the appropriate include files,
<or allows conditional #defines depending on memory model (the usual
>method).

Please be sure to add that this is not required if a program is
correctly written, and it is merely a fixe to get some incorrectly
written programs to compile.
-- 
/*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
| Wen-King Su  wen-king@vlsi.caltech.edu  Caltech Corp of Cosmic Engineers |
\*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/