Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:6865 comp.std.c:2627
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: references to dereferenced null pointers
Message-ID: <26035266.26194@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 90 09:18:30 GMT
References: <51083@microsoft.UUCP> <25EB8EE8.8462@paris.ics.uci.edu> <16179@haddock.ima.isc.com> <10582@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 31

In article <10582@alice.UUCP> shopiro@alice.UUCP (Jonathan Shopiro) writes:
>
>
>To me the interesting question in this null pointer business is
>whether there is any circumstance where it is legal to say *p
>where p is a null pointer.
...
>I think the fundamental issue here is when is a pointer dereferenced?
>(Since it is clearly illegal to dereference the null pointer).  I don't
>se why writing
...
>
>	&*p
>
>should dereference p.

I think this discussion is comming full circle.

If you scan backwards over the (20-30) postings on this issue you'll note that
I said almost exactly this same thing 20-30 messages ago.

It was quickly pointed out to me that I was I was being naive (which I now
freely admit that I was) because the question becomes confusing if p
contains a NULL pointer value.

Perhaps we should just take a vote and put the issue to bed.


// Ron Guilmette (rfg@ics.uci.edu)
// C++ Entomologist
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.