Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!bellcore!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: time(0L) - history of a misconception
Message-ID: <16254@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 24 May 91 20:53:47 GMT
References: <381@tmcsys.UUCP> <1991May22.130713.25852@sco.COM> <7649@segue.segue.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <7649@segue.segue.com> jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>In article <1991May22.130713.25852@sco.COM> david@sco.COM (David Fiander) writes:
>>There exist architectures on which the NULL pointer is different from
>>"all bits 0".
>This isn't relevant if using ANSI prototypes, since any form of zero is
>implicitly converted to the appropriate null pointer, no matter how it is
>represented.

Well, no, that's not quite right.  First of all, an appropriate prototype
must be in scope for automatic argument coercions to be performed; second,
only certain ways of writing "zero" will be converted to a null pointer
constant.  The bit pattern is definitely not relevant.