Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: gcc and NULL function pointers. Message-ID: Date: 19 Jun 91 20:40:34 GMT References: <1991Jun4.012914.25418@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <4641@inews.intel.com> <4728@inews.intel.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 24 In article <4728@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@nevin.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > 1. I am not responsible for bad/typical/good design of compilers. > 2. I am not responsible for your incorrect use of the semantics > of function calls. > 3. I do, however, feel responsible for your education and > edification as long as you are part of my community, I'm not responsible for that code. I know it's wrong. It is, however, something that I have to fix over and over and over again because one of your co-workers at intel decided to use a bondage-and-discipline definition of NULL in . Technically correct, but practically a problem. I have better things to do with my time than fixing all the broken software in comp.sources. If I can get it working by futzing around in a defs.h file instead of groveling through the source to elm (a particularly poorly written example), I will. And: on an intel 80x86 (x<3) the best definition for NULL is (void *)0. Period. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"