Re: Style Question

[Kyle Moffett]

On Mar 11, 2007, at 19:16:59, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Mar 11 2007 18:01, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > On the other hand when __cplusplus is defined they define it to  
> > the "__null" builtin, which GCC uses to give type conversion  
> > errors for "int foo = NULL" but not "char *foo = NULL".  A "((void  
> > *)0)" definition gives C++ type errors for both due to the broken C 
> > ++ void pointer conversion problems.
>
> I think that the primary reason they use __null is so that you can
> actually do
>
> 	class foo *ptr = NULL;
>
> because
>
> 	class foo *ptr = (void *)0;
>
> would throw an error or at least a warning (implicit cast from void*
> to class foo*).

Isn't that what I said? :-D

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/