Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!ucbvax!info-vax
From: info-vax@ucbvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax
Subject: Re: Dereferencing NULL pointer in C
Message-ID: <8602061900.AA12098@amdahl>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 14:00:32 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.8602061900.AA12098
Posted: Thu Feb  6 14:00:32 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 08:43:53 EST
References: <8602030356.AA03669@epsilon.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Advanced Systems Planning
Lines: 16
Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa

In article <8602030356.AA03669@epsilon.UUCP> you write:
> 
> 
> 
> 	You are not alone.....   The Pr1ime C compiler is in danger
> of the same thing due to the difference between a"NULL" and the 
> defined NULL.  In most of the C world NULL is some concept con-
> cerning "0"... this is not the real case.  What we want for "NULL"
> is really a C cast called "(char *) 0" which really means a pointer
> valuse to 0.

Wrong.  Look at the current draft standard on C.  This subject has
been discussed at great length before and the correct answer is that
NULL is equal to a constant value of zero.

Steve Langdon  ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl  +1 408 746 6970