Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!spdcc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: What C compilers have non-zero null pointers?
Message-ID: <17116@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 18 Jul 90 20:25:56 GMT
References: <GMKM5FY@drivax.UUCP> <9007161750.AA00664@edison.CHO.GE.COM> <12288@netcom.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@kelp.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302
Lines: 13

In article <12288@netcom.UUCP> ergo@netcom.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) writes:
>	for (ptr = fist; ptr != 0; ptr = ptr->next)
>	for (ptr = first; ptr ; ptr = ptr->next)
>which produces tighter code and (most important of all) looks
>spiffier.

There is no reason it should produce tighter code; the compiler still has
to generate a compare against zero.  And whether it "looks spiffier" is a
matter of taste.  I personally switched to explicit compares (against an
*appropriately typed* zero!) many years ago.  Redundancy is your friend.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@kelp.ima.isc.com or ima!kelp!karl), The Walking Lint
if (i != 0 && c != '\0' && x != 0.0 && p != NULL) abort();