Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu
From: bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu (Niket K. Patwardhan)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  NULL pointer
Message-ID: <3361@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 18-Nov-85 16:49:23 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3361
Posted: Mon Nov 18 16:49:23 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Nov-85 00:59:34 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 66

>Date:     Sun, 17 Nov 85 3:59:50 EST
>From:     Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA>
>To:       Davidsen <davidsen%steinmetz.uucp@BRL.ARPA>
>cc:       info-c@brl-tgr.arpa
>Subject:  Re:  NULL pointer
>
>I'll see if I can beat Guy Harris to this one:
>
>The whole topic of the correct #definition for NULL
>has been beat to death more than once on this mailing list.
>
>The answer is that NULL must be defined as simply 0
>and that code that misuses NULL cannot be fixed in
>general by any change in its #definition.
>
>Consider
>
>	hi_func()
>	{
>		...
>		lo_func( ..., NULL, ... );
>		...
>	}
>
>	lo_func( ..., p, ... )
>		int *p;
>	{
>		...
>	}
>
>This code is INCORRECT, whether NULL is #defined as 0
>or as (char *)0.  The only correct way to do this
>(not counting the new X3J11 parameter type coercion
>mechanism) is to change the invocation of lo_func to:
>
>		lo_func( ..., (int *)NULL, ... );
>
>By trying to #define NULL as (char *)0, you are trying
>to keep the programmer from having to understand this
>and deal with it properly.  You also cause problems
>with statements such as
>
>	if ( p == NULL )
>		do_stuff;
>
>when the type of `p' is not (char *).  The only
>universal #definition for NULL that works in all such
>cases is 0.  (Of course, some machines allow sloppier
>usage.  This discussion assumes universality.)
>
>#define	NULL	0	/* don't muck around with it */

The last line: ---- I agree with it whole-heartedly.

But..... for a machine with non-zero null pointer representations

>		lo_func( ..., (int *)NULL, ... );

still doesn't work. What the callee routine gets is a pointer with an all-zero
representation.... which isn't a null pointer. The ONLY thing that does work is

		lo_func( ..., p=0, ....);

where p is a pointer of the requisite type! Of course, with parameter type
coercion (or should I say conversion.. it isn't the same thing), this
shouldn't be necessary!