Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: What machines core dump on deref of NULL? Message-ID: <2690EB73.11EC@tct.uucp> Date: 3 Jul 90 19:01:07 GMT References: <13226@smoke.BRL.MIL> <26878337.172@tct.uucp> <413@minya.UUCP> Organization: ComDev/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 22 According to jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers): >In article <26878337.172@tct.uucp>, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >> We should NOT make engineering decisions based on >> perceived blame. Dereferencing null pointers is >> *illegal* and *non-portable*. > >Beg to differ, but C is widely used for writing embedded code [...] You are taking my statement out of context. I was talking about an *application* that failed because it was moved from an architecture that permitted user programs to dereference NULL to an architecture that did not permit it. In that context, if "the computer" or "the compiler" gets the blame for the failure, it's a bum rap, because the original programmer is at fault for writing non-portable code. In the context of device drivers, though, "non-portable" is often the order of the day, and the above comments do not apply. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT ,