Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!daemon
From: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: I'm confused (Re: What C compilers have non-zero null pointers?)
Message-ID: <1990Jul23.122612.20886@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 23 Jul 90 12:26:12 GMT
References: <30820@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <9007201132.AA06954@edison.CHO.GE.COM>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Reply-To: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Organization: Thermal Technologies, Inc.
Lines: 19

In article <9007201132.AA06954@edison.CHO.GE.COM> rja <rja@edison.cho.ge.com> writes:
>It is true without doubt that both K&R and ANS X3.159 C
>both guarantee that comparing a pointer to "0" is the
>same as comparing a pointer to "NULL."  
>It is also something that is broken on several widely
>used C compilers for the Intel segmented architecture.

It wouldn't hurt if you named names.  The existence of such
broken compilers is one of the reasons that null pointer
confusion never ends.  A compiler that doesn't properly treat "0"
as a source-code null pointer is truly broken, and its vendor
couldn't complain about libel or slander if that fact were
mentioned here.  (If the compiler in question is in fact not
broken, or if it has been fixed in a later version, it would be
nice to get the word out to those who had believed it was broken
so they can stop being duplicitous about NULL, either.)

                                            Steve Summit
                                            scs@adam.mit.edu