Xref: utzoo comp.arch:5009 comp.lang.c:10455
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!ukma!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: negative addresses
Summary: ANSI fixes that
Message-ID: <226@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 27 May 88 21:09:26 GMT
References: <2393@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> <21541@amdcad.AMD.COM> <4086@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 31

In article <4086@gryphon.CTS.COM>, sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM (Stan Friesen) writes:
)             There *are* cases of code that does make such assumptions.
) They all have the following general form:
)
) func1(p)
) char *p;
) {
)       /* stuff */
) }
)
) ...
)
) func2()
) {
)       ...
)       func1(0);
) }
)
)       In this example the code assumes both the representation *and* the
) size of NULL-pointer. This code is *not* portable even among existing
) compilers. Nor is it even conforming, let alone strictly so. Any code of
) this form only works accidentally and needs to be fixed anyway.
) --
) Sarima Cardolandion                   sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM
) aka Stanley Friesen                   rutgers!marque!gryphon!sarima

Actually, if you are using Standard C, declare func1 with a prototype
and the problem goes away. Prototypes were invented to (among other
things) solve this kind of problem.

Perhaps this is what you intended to say?