Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: NULL question not in FAQ
Message-ID: <15616@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 28 Mar 91 22:10:20 GMT
References: <1991Mar26.235643.4498@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Mar27.194101.1685@grebyn.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <1991Mar27.194101.1685@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes:
>	int i = 0;
>	char *p = (char *)i;
>So is it correct to interpret this code as unportable?

It's not only not guaranteed to work in all standard-conforming C
implementations, it may not even compile successfully, if "int" is
not a suitable type for holding a pointer representation.  (SOME
integer type must do so, but not necessarily "int", which for example
could be only 16 bits in a 24-bit address-space environment.)

Basically, you should try to not use integer types to hold values of
pointers.  Usually it is simpler to use a pointer type all along.