Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!rutgers!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: gcc and NULL function pointers.
Message-ID: <16506@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 22 Jun 91 23:13:44 GMT
References: <9752@cognos.UUCP> <25572@well.sf.ca.us> <1146.Jun2221.20.2291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <1146.Jun2221.20.2291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>I'm not sure what people are arguing here. Yes, programmers should
>always cast NULL appropriately if they use it at all, because there
>exist vendors which #define NULL 0. Yes, vendors should define NULL as
>((char *) 0) or ((void *) 0), because there exist programmers who use
>NULL without casting and it's better to detect such misuse. What's the
>issue?

The issue is that #defining NULL as ((void*)0) does NOT detect such
misuse, nor does it adequately compensate for it in all cases.

#defining NULL as ((char*)0) is simply wrong.