Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Using NULL as an illegal pointer
Message-ID: <7713@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Jul-84 00:14:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.7713
Posted: Mon Jul  2 00:14:09 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Jul-84 03:40:52 EDT
References: <1273@sri-arpa.UUCP> <4011@utzoo.UUCP> <311@harvard.ARPA>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 18

You can argue the merits of ``char *foo = NULL;'' versus ``char
*foo = (char *)NULL;'' 'til you're blue in the face, but the C
language specification requires that assignments (and return values)
be of the same type as the left hand side of the assignment (or
the type of the function).  If a C compiler generate different code
for

	char *func() { return 0; }

and

	char *func() { return (char *) 0; }

then it is broken.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci (301) 454-7690
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@maryland