Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:1012 comp.lang.c:17430
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-lcc!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!zen!frank
From: frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: realloc
Summary: bad assumptions
Message-ID: <1555@zen.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 89 08:58:29 GMT
References: <10170@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <10032@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <1196@cmtl01.UUCP>
Reply-To: frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales)
Organization: Zengrange Limited, Leeds, England
Lines: 15

In article <1196@cmtl01.UUCP> oisin@cmtl01.UUCP (Oisin) writes:
>in Article 131 of comp.std.c: gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly)  says:
>>or are you one of those people that assumes (*((char *)NULL) == 0) too?
>
>Pardon my ignorance, but if I'm wrong you can flame me too...
>Does the draft not specify that whatever implementation of NULL is used, 
>the compiler must guarantee that a ptr containing that implementation's
>version of NULL must test as false?

[just a singe] Gregg was actually bemoaning the extremely fragile assumption
that dereferencing a NULL pointer yields 0, probably the commonest single
pain in the arse to those who would port other people's programs.
--
Frank Wales, Systems Manager,        [frank@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank]
Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217