Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: NULL vs 0
Message-ID: <1592@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jan-84 20:35:24 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1592
Posted: Fri Jan 20 20:35:24 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jan-84 08:31:34 EST
References: <345@hocda.UUCP> <2406@rabbit.UUCP>, <4808@umcp-cs.UUCP> <126@exodus.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 9

Unfortunately, NULL should *not* be (char *)0, because there is no such thing
as a generic null pointer in C.  Each type of pointer has its own flavor of
null pointer.  If you declare NULL as (char *)0, then if you pass NULL to a
routine which expects (int *)0, you will get a complaint from "lint" at best
and a dead program at worst - what if you have a word-addressed machine in
which (int *) takes 16 bits but (char *) takes 32?

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy